Design Development Report

Contents:
Bella, Temi, Abdul and Parit
Intro
Final Design
Concept Design
1 Shape of Hull/ Rider Position
2 Nose Cone/ Hatch
3 Propeller why contrarotating ver variable pitch
Component Design

Fins
Steering
Propeller
Gears
Chain
Bearings
Nose cone
Hatch
Beam/frame
Pedal mechanism- Additional mechanisms
Harness

Final Design

Buoyancy
Material
Price
Etc

Intro

Contents
Introduction...................................................................................................................4

1. Introduction
This report gives insight into the design development process from concept to final
design of Mazu, the two person human powered submarine. Section ___ includes
initial design sketches, CAD models and information on materials and manufacturing
methods. By careful evaluation and research, alterations were made to create a fully
functional final design.
A specification was made and 8 initial designs were drawn. What else to say about
the initial designs.
An evaluation matrix was used on the 8 designs mentioned above. The following 3
concepts were chosen for various reasons.

Concept A
Talk about final design

This report examines the orchestral changes involved in developing the overall
design of a variable pitch propeller system. Identifying key aspects of the design to
develop further will enable critical and logical thinking to create a perfect system. By
prioritising certain aspects of the design and implementing techniques to develop the
best overall design based on research, a fully functional final idea will be proposed.

Certain aspects of the design include the materials desired for the final assembly. A
lightweight and affordable invention with maintaining high strength is just some of the
characteristics required for the project. The manufacturability and reparability of the
designed system will also be discussed. This would highlight the relevance and
feasibility of this project for the actual race.

Performance levels of the system will be evaluated with calculations based on

certain assumptions. An insight into logical reasons and explanations for individual
component selection will also be provided whilst maintaining a professional overview
of the design.

A complete set of annotated rendered images and diagrams generated from

SolidWorks are included to exhibit the finalised design. Clear and concise

explanations for each choice in the report represent the thorough comprehension
and belief in the aforementioned design.

1.1 Initial Ideas

The following initial ideas..

1.2 Conceptual Ideas

The 8 designs mentioned in Section
1.
2. Shape of Hull/ Rider Position Design Process
Original 8 designs?
Concept A:
The first hull arrangement we examined was a two-person, sitting
back, inline formation. This hull shape is similar to that of
traditional submarines as it is long and narrow. The two pilots are
feet to feet with their own pedal drive system. The drive system
powers a variable pitch propeller found at the rear of the
submarine. There are four control planes in the rear of the
submarine connected by a steering yoke for each pilot.
Concept B:
The second hull arrangement analysed was a two-person sitting
back side by side formation. This hull shape is symmetric about
the vertical and horizontal planes; in order for the riders to fit
side by side the design is very wide. The two riders again both
have their own pedal system which in turn causes powers a rear
positioned, contra rotating propeller. There are two side fins
positioned towards the centre of the vessel, controlled again by a
steering yoke which both pilots will have control of.
Concept C:
The third hull arrangement we considered was a two-person,
forward facing, inline formation. The hull shape is very similar to
concept A yet the pilots are feet to head, again with their own
pedal drive system. This shape again is fairly long and narrow,
yet more compact than concept A. Both pilots have control of a
steering yoke which manipulates the movement of two side fins
located towards the front of the submarine.

Table 1: Seed preditions for concept and final designs

From initial ideas to conceptual

Table 1: Speed Predictions for concept and final designs.
Concep Concep Concep Final
tA
tB
tC
Design
Length
6.09m
2.4m
3.85m
3.18m
Width
0.87m
1.18m
1m
0.68m
Height
0.87m
0.93
1
0.95m
Total Final Resistance (at 75.15N 78.377 75.237 92.827N
Gate 4)
N
N
Time from gate 1 to gate 37.732 37.559 37.026 27.780s
4
s
s
s
Average Speed ( Gate 1
1.916m 2.081m 1.918m 3.6m/s
to Gate 4)
/s
/s
/s

Concept A
Originally concept A was chosen for the shape of
the hull and rider position, yet this design led to an
excess of wasted space due to the great length.
This excess space meant the submarine had a
larger surface area than necessary, therefore not
as optimised, resulting in lower speed predictions
shown in Table 1.table 1.Table 1.

Concept B
In order to minimise this wasted space,
reduce resistive forces and make the
submarine rider positions as compact as
possible Design D was carried forward, thus
resulting in faster speeds.

Concept C
The large width (shown in table 1) needed
to cater for two riders side by side led to an
increase in drag. Although the final speed
was less than that of concept A the resistive
forces meant that speeds were not optimal.

Final Design
Th

3. Nose Cone/Hatch
Initially a combined nose cone
hatch was considered shown in
figure ?. The hatch would be
manufactured using a transparent
material, with a hinge placed at
the bottom of the hatch in order for it to be opened/closed.
Although this design provided ease of access, especially ease of
access when manufacturing and maintaining components within
the submarine, ISR guidelines (ref 1) state that crews face and

head areas shall be visible to the support and safety divers at all
times.
The agreed upon separate
nose cone and hatch enables
Figure 1: Original combined nose cone/hatch (Idea A)

divers to easily see the riders

from above at all times.
Additionally rigidity of the hull will be increased with a separate
nose cone/hatch arrangement. The visibility of the riders has not
been impaired as the new rider position encompasses a step up
position. The emergency hatch will be placed on the top of the
submarine, with equal ease of access to both riders, yet only one
rider will be able to exit at a time.

4. Propeller

Variable Pitch Propeller

Advantages
Disadvantag
es

Contra-Rotating Propeller
Advantages
Disadvantages

5. Gears
5.1 Gear arrangement
Initially, the choice for which gear system was most suitable in
terms of functionality for the submarine was between Worm and
Bevel gears.
Although both gears are able to change the direction of motion by
90 we agreed on using bevel gears. The worm screw typically
drives the worm gear and the worm screw is usually powered by a
shaft. Our design requires the reverse of this gear design, as the
shaft will need to be powered by the gear.
In comparison, the bevel gear is comprised of two gears set at
perpendicular positions to each other. The system works in rolling
motion where the teeth push against each other. The bevel gear

will work well with the calculated 4:1 ratio, and easily change the
direction needed to power the shaft.
Hpcgears
W12
Iterative process, how changing the size or changing anything
affected the speed

Pinion 1 connected to bevel gear and inner shaft Pinion 2 connected to bevel gear and outer shaft

Inner shaft turning outer propeller

Outer shaft turning inner propeller

Bevel gear powered by chain drive from pedals, turning pinions in opposite d

Figure 2: Initial Sketch of Gear Drive

5.2

Gear Material

When selecting the material for the gears, yield and tensile
strength, price and durability in fresh water were all considered.
Material
Medium Carbon
Steel
Low Alloy Steel
Stainless Steel

Price
/kg
0.3260.364
0.3510.389
3.694.07

Corrosion in Fresh
Water
Acceptable
Acceptable
Excellent

UTS

Yield

4101200
5501760
4802240

305900
4001500
1701000

Aluminium Alloy

1.37Excellent
65-386
1.51
Table ?: Material selection factors (ref CESEdupack)

50-130

We decided upon using low alloy steel, due to its high tensile and
yield strength, cheap price and as the submarine is not in
constant use, we agreed that its acceptable durability in fresh
water was satisfactory for our design.

5.3

Gear Sizing

A gear ratio of 4:1 was calculated in order to give the highest

average speed when the rider input is 200rpm at an average
700W. Gears will be = 20o made from low alloy steel with UTS =
550 Mpa and Yield = 400 Mpa.
Assumptions:

18 teeth on the pinion therefore 72 teeth on the gear.

Lewis Form Factor= 0.27
Factor of safety =3 gives max = 400/3 = 133.3 MPa
Module= 2mm

W t P/V

D n
60

36
K v 6/(6+V )

D n
60

6
6 +0.377 m/s

0.941

700W
0.377 m/ s

1856.807 N

( 0.036 m 200 rpm)/60

Wt
K v m Y0.377
m/ s

6
6 +0.377 m/s

0.941

Symbol
P

Meaning
Power

Units
watts

Value
700

Speed

rpm

200

Source
Sub speed
prediction
spreadsheet
Sub speed
prediction

Npinion
Ngear
Y
m
Dpinion

Dgear

V
Wt
Kv
D n
V
60 F
D n
60

Sd

P
Fallow-min

Fallow-max

Pinion
Teeth
Gear Teeth
Lewis Form
Factor
Module
Pitch
diameter
pinion
Pitch
diameter
gear
Velocity
(pitch line)
Force
Velocity
Factor
Face Width
Shaft
centres
distance
apart
Pitch
Allowable
face width
minimum
Allowable
face width
maximum

18

spreadsheet
Assumed

72
0.309

Gear ratio x Npinion

m
m

0.002
0.036

Assumed
Calculated

0.144

Calculated

m/s

0.377

Calculated

1856.8
08
0.941

Calculated

m
m

0.024
0.09

Calculated
Calculated

m
m

6.283
0.019

Calculated
Calculated

0.0314

Calculated

Calculated