An article in last month’s PRISM, a magazine published by the American Society for Engineering Education, discusses the value of a first-year engineering course that exposes freshman engineering students to what engineering is all about. Many engineering programs pack their first year with challenging prerequisite courses, such as calculus, physics, and chemistry, but sometimes neglect helping students get the big picture early on. It’s easy for a student to get lost in the labyrinth of technical topics, and lose sight of what engineering is all about.
The author of the PRISM article, Prof. Henry Petroski of Duke University, advocates including ‘engineering appreciation’ courses in the engineering curriculum, and focuses on the value these courses have to engineering students. Petroski likens engineering appreciation courses to other introductory courses offered in other disciplines that have no prerequisites, such as art or art history appreciation.
I was fortunate enough to experience two different introductory engineering classes at two separate universities. Each of these courses involved an engaging design project and competition that helped students experience the engineering design process covered in class. In the first course the project was to build a trebuchet (a weight-powered catapult) for launching golf balls. In the second class we built a device that could ride down a model roller coaster, and safely rescue an egg positioned below the roller coaster. In each class I learned something about what engineers actually do in a fun and engaging way; I began to develop my own vision for what I wanted my engineering career to be.
I believe that developing a personal vision for what engineering is (as a profession and how it impacts the world) is essential for all engineering students. This vision can help carry students through the demands of their engineering program, and help them derive more relevance from the individual topics they study. Engineering appreciation courses are certainly a valuable in this regard. I would like to take this idea to the next level. Let’s not limit these courses to engineers or prospective engineers. The art appreciation courses in Petroski’s comparison are not limited to art majors. Engineering, science, and business students all benefit from taking classes like art appreciation, which help them develop a more well-rounded understanding of the world. Why not develop an engineering appreciation class open to all students, targeted specifically for non-engineers? Obviously an engineering appreciation class benefits future engineers, but what about an even broader impact? What would it mean to our society if many college graduates had a solid understanding and appreciation for what engineering is? It could do wonders for the public perception of engineers, and perhaps even contribute to restoring U.S. economic competitiveness by inducing deeper appreciation for and stronger cultural value for technical skills and innovation.
My vision for an engineering appreciation class is one with no prerequisites that college students from all majors could take to fill a science general education requirement; students could take this instead of physics or chemistry. It could be centered around interesting applications students can relate to, things like the engineering behind sports, amusement parks, video games, music, etc., and show how basic math and science topics are relevant to engineering analysis and design. If you were a non-engineering college student, would you consider taking an engineering appreciation class in place of physics? What ideas do you have that could make an engineering appreciation course appealing to a broad range of students?
Posted: January 18th, 2010 | Filed under: Design, Education, Vision | 1 Comment »
[Image Credit: TreeHugger]
Earlier this week I had the grand opportunity to tour the Genzyme Center in Cambridge MA with a group of engineers. This building is a little out of the ordinary; it was designed using a whole-systems approach to dramatically reduce its environmental impact, while providing an exceptional environment for those working inside. A system of heliostats on the roof track the sun throughout the day, aiming natural light downward through the expansive atrium. Gently swaying prisms suspended in the atrium then scatter this light throughout the rest of the building. Interior gardens, terraces, and pools not only add to the aesthetics, but contribute inviting areas for employee collaboration, and provide ecological services that help maintain quality of the interior environment.
Among the several distinctions awarded to the Genzyme Center is the vaunted Platinum LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) Certification. The building was completed in November 2003, and is now on the elite list of 80 buildings worldwide with the highest LEED certification. You can read more about the Genzyme Center’s LEED profile here. What does it mean for a building to be LEED certified? While reducing fossil fuel consumption is an important consideration, there are several other characteristics evaluated, including:
- Sustainability of site location
- Water efficiency
- Energy and atmosphere (building sector energy use is 48% of the U.S. total: substantial opportunity for improvement here)
- Materials and resources
- Indoor environmental quality (low VOCs, occupants can control their environment)
- Location and linkages (how people will commute to this building: support for bicycle commuting, access to public transportation)
- Awareness and education (helping building users get the most from building features)
- Innovation and design process (designing the building as a whole system, not a collection of parts)
- Regional priority
In addition to capitalizing on natural light, the Genzyme Center utilizes a variety of other innovative techniques to cut down on energy consumption. The building is designed to exploit natural convection currents for heating and cooling. About a third of the exterior has a ‘ventilated double-facade that blocks solar gains in summer and captures solar gains in the winter.’ What was most impressive to me was the flexibility of the systems in the building. The building manager can try out new strategies for heating, cooling, lighting, etc. to adapt to changing conditions. This kind of flexibility makes possible the discovery of synergies between systems that enable even better energy efficiency than what was expected during building design. Building management for the Genzyme Center seems to be an ongoing optimization process. Right now people control the adaptation, but it seems to a be a perfect application for machine learning. Does anyone know of building systems that use machine learning or other algorithms to fine tune operations?
An obvious question LEED certification, and sustainable building design in general, is whether the additional cost for alternative building approaches is worth the investment. According to a report for the California Sustainable Building Task Force, an initial investment of an extra 2% of the building cost will yield more than ten times the initial investment of the life cycle of the building. In addition to energy, water, and other resource savings, companies that invest in LEED certified or other sustainable building practices reap the benefits of increased worker productivity. My tour of Genzyme Center this week convinced me of the reality of this last point.
Sustainable building practices may cost more up front, but are sound business decisions when a long-term perspective is maintained. Greener building design is not only the right thing to do for humanity and our world, but also for businesses.
Posted: November 14th, 2009 | Filed under: Design, Energy, Sustainability | No Comments »
A central theme of Design Impact is how design engineers can improve quality of life and sustainability simultaneously through better design. Design engineers make decisions about how things work and how they are made, and these decisions have profound impact on our society. One of the most significant areas engineering design has an an impact on is energy use. In addition to reducing consumption, we need to develop and put into service products and systems that use energy more efficiently. By using advanced design techniques, such as design optimization, incorporating more efficient technology, or simplifying systems and processes, engineers can help propel us toward energy sustainability. It’s important to recognize that efficiency alone won’t solve our energy challenges. Without incentive to consume less, energy consumption may not go down. Motorists, for example, tend to drive more miles as fuel efficiency rises. We need policy changes that stimulate energy conservation, which in turn will drive demand for energy efficient products and improved engineering design.
To provide a forum to discuss recent advances in energy efficiency research, I’m organizing a new session (DAC-9) at 2010 ASME iDETC, an engineering design conference organized by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers. The conference will be held August 15-18, 2010 in Montreal. The topic of the session I’m organizing is Design for Energy Efficiency, and I’m hoping to get the word out early about this session to stimulate interest in the topic and encourage strong participation. If you are working on any projects that involve improving energy efficiency through design, please consider sharing what you have learned by contributing to this session. Draft papers are due by January 29th, 2010. If you have any questions or suggestions regarding the session or conference, please feel free to contact me, or post your ideas to the comments section below. Here is a description of the session from the conference website:
Posted: October 13th, 2009 | Filed under: Design, Education, Energy, Optimization, Sustainability | No Comments »
Design for Energy Efficiency: DAC-9
The ASME Design Automation Committee invites papers focused on design theory, innovation, or methods that enhance energy efficiency of energy consuming products or systems. Analytical design techniques that reduce energy consumption while maintaining or improving performance are of particular interest. Sample topics of interest include but are not limited to the following:
- Using optimization to improve energy efficiency
- Reducing energy consumption through process analysis and redesign
- Energy recovery and reuse
- Advanced/intelligent/alternative transportation systems
- Novel control techniques that reduce energy consumption
- Efficient energy storage
- Challenges in transitioning to more efficient technologies
- Economics of energy efficient technology
- Energy savings through system simplification
Thomas Friedman, the author of Hot, Flat, and Crowded, has invited readers to contribute ideas for a final chapter for the second version of the book. He wants to hear our thoughts on how we might ‘grow people’s living standards in a more sustainable and regenerative way’. (If you haven’t yet read HFC, I highly recommend it.) Here is my response to Friedman’s invitation:
In Hot, Flat, and Crowded you discuss the importance of ’smarter’ design; by changing how things are built, how they work, and are retired, we can reduce energy consumption and environmental impact dramatically, as well as improve quality of life and national security. I believe better design is at the core of a green revolution, and we need increased efforts to help others solidify mental links between design improvements and a vision for a sustainable future. In addition to helping citizens deepen their appreciation for the role of design, we must address this issue on two other fronts: public policy and engineering expertise. We need the right policy and incentives to set the stage for a transition to sustainability, as well as the technical expertise to implement the transition rapidly. I would like to address the latter issue.
To realize a green revolution, we can’t settle for products that are ‘good enough’, or green technology that evolves slowly. Instead, we must seek to develop the very best, most efficient designs, and do so quickly. Instead of taking small steps each year with slightly more efficient cars, slightly better wind turbines, let’s make giant leaps! We need the backing of citizens, the support of policy makers, and boldness from engineers and engineering educators to advance our ability to create sustainable systems and products. Researchers have developed impressive new engineering design methods the last few decades that can help us create products and systems that use less energy and other resources, while making leaps forward in performance. Some of these methods are mature and proven, but unfortunately are not yet used widely by engineers. First, let’s have a look at the conventional design process.
Suppose we were designing a car to be very energy efficient, but still performs well at a reasonable cost. Using a conventional design process, engineers would generate design ideas, test these candidate designs, propose new designs, and iterate until they converge on a design that meets (or comes close to) design targets. In the past, engineers relied heavily on expensive physical prototypes for testing. More firms now use computer models that predict how something will perform without having to build it. While this saves time and money, design refinements often are still made by engineers based on test results, experience, and expertise. Managing all these often conflicting design decisions is often overwhelming, particularly as products evolve and become more complicated; engineers stop when they find a design that meets basic requirements, instead of pursuing the best possible, or optimal, design.
One prominent method developed by researchers is design optimization. Other readers have also described optimization as an important solution; I hope to strengthen this position and clarify the link between optimization and engineering design. When using design optimization, engineers work to minimize or maximize some important aspect of a product, in addition to seeking to meet design requirements. In the car example, we might seek to maximize fuel economy, while meeting acceleration, handling, comfort, cost, safety, and other constraints. Framing a design problem in this way allows engineers to use computer models and powerful optimization algorithms together to help generate the best possible design. In this process design candidates to be tested are chosen analytically using mathematical techniques, reducing the number of tests and time to market. It can help engineers learn what is really achievable, opening our eyes to new possibilities. Design optimization also accelerates design evolution by enabling engineers to make more substantial design changes between product generations, instead of just small perturbations of the last version (as is usually the case now).
The design optimization approach is actually a pretty natural fit for how engineers already go about designing things; using formal design optimization is an enhancement that produces better results in less time, and leverages investments many firms have already made in computer modeling. It’s not a push-button solution; it automates some aspects of design, but requires engineering expertise and experience to implement successfully. (In the parlance of The World is Flat, design optimization is a high-level, ‘icing’ activity). Awareness is perhaps the biggest hindrance to the adoption of design optimization. It needs to be taught in undergraduate (not just graduate) engineering courses, as well as in industry training programs.
In summary, design engineers make a lot of important decisions that have tremendous impact on our world. Moving beyond status quo design processes can help engineers deliver sustainable products and systems while improving living standards; these changes in engineering design are essential to a successful green revolution. Right now there is a lot of low-hanging fruit; there are many opportunities to improve our world through better design. Design optimization can help us put new technology into production faster, as well as refine systems that use existing technology. This can help us bring energy efficient designs into production more quickly, and accelerate the transition to renewable energy systems. We have the technical tools, but we need the societal impetus to put them to broad use.
James T. Allison, Ph.D.
Posted: September 24th, 2009 | Filed under: Design, Education, Energy, Optimization, Sustainability | 1 Comment »
Guest blogger Greg Kushmerek continues his series of articles on bike commuting:
I am the parent of young children, one of which has recently started at public school. As with many working parents, I need to juggle my work schedule with their school schedules.
This week I tried a little experiment: compare a car-based vs. bike-based commute while doing school drop-off for a 15-mile commute.
- Put bike seat on back of bike.
- Load child on bike.
- Ride to school (5 blocks).
- Lock bike to fence (no bike racks).
- Ride back home and deposit bike seat.
- Bike to work
Bicycle: Dahon Cadenza (my slower, heavier bike). Arrive at work: 9:28
I was showered and working before 10AM. Had the work VPN been up that morning, I’d have had 30 extra minutes at home to check and respond to messages.
- Walk child to school
- Walk back home
- Drive car
Car commute conditions were a touch heavier than normal, but within the mean. Arrive at work: 9:10
Sacrificing the bike for the car (or forsaking the bike for the car — your call) doesn’t yield major gains, at least not for me. Had it been inclement weather or a good deal colder the car puts in a more obvious advantage. The time gains from the car are even a bit inflated when you consider that on car-day, I arrived at the school five minutes earlier. One could argue that less traffic would lead to bigger time gains, but I know I can get to work faster on my Felt (about 3mph / 5min faster).
Given a flexible work environment where some on-line work or staying a touch later is allowed, the time difference isn’t enough to warrant giving up the bike for the car.
For some people arriving 18 minutes later and sweaty is just a no-go. For those who live a lot closer to where they work, that time gap could practically vanish, and one might not even need to clean up.
Posted: September 18th, 2009 | Filed under: Cycling, Transportation | 4 Comments »
Earlier I wrote about the need for educational programs that link technical subjects with other topics so that graduates are better equipped to solve complex problems. We do a pretty good job at training engineers in technical subjects, and are working to improve soft skills as well, but we still have a ways to go toward graduating ‘renaissance’ engineers who are skilled at linking technical aspects with societal, environmental, or other facets of challenging problems.
A proposed program at the University of Windsor would help address this issue. This new program would ‘combine engineering with the humanities and arts.’ This program would culminate in a bachelors degree, whereas many other interdisciplinary engineering programs are restricted to the graduate level. Waguih ElMaraghy, department head of Industrial and Manufacturing Systems Engineering, explains that engineers now must solve ‘not only technical problems, but social technical problems.’ Students of this program would have opportunity to study at the interface between disciplines, and work toward becoming ‘renaissance’ engineers.
Posted: September 10th, 2009 | Filed under: Education | No Comments »
The National Science Board is asking how we can prepare students to become future innovators in advance of policy recommendations it will deliver to the National Science Foundation next year. How can we actually teach innovation? Our technical and economic leadership depends on our ability to innovate. Traditional lecture-based instruction may flounder in this endeavor. Generation of new ideas requires us to think outside well-structured problem definitions and solutions; we need to make creative connections between existing ideas and look at problems in new ways.
Perhaps learning centered around open-ended projects would help. Project-based learning is becoming more prevalent at the college level (have a look at Olin College’s project-based curriculum, for example), but what about teaching innovation earlier in life? Ideally students would already have a foundation of curiosity and creativity by the time they get to college.
I urge that over-scheduled childhoods impede development of creative talents. In an earlier article, I suggested that children need plenty of opportunities for independent hands-on exploration. It takes lot of (unstructured) time to experiment and learn for yourself how things work, whether natural or built, and engaging in this process can amplify both curiosity and the flow of ideas.
We need folks who are not only creative and passionate about innovation, but also have the knowledge and tools to develop their ideas into actionable solutions. Innovation may be one of the hardest skills to teach, but we shouldn’t stop there. More traditional pedagogical approaches can complement innovation education by providing students with quantitative and practical skills that can help them put their ideas into practice.
I can speak from my own experience and what I’ve learned from teaching others about design (an activity that requires substantial creativity and innovation), but this is admittedly a very narrow set of insights. What has your experience been? What suggestions would you give to the NSB or NSF for enhancing innovation?
Posted: September 2nd, 2009 | Filed under: Education | No Comments »
Last May I wrote about the winner of the 2009 Buckminster Fuller Challenge: the MIT Media Lab and their solution to urban personal mobility. The topic for the 2010 Challenge was just announced. The Buckminster Fuller Institute will award $100,000 to the 2010 winner, and is looking for entries that exhibit broad design solutions to “create an enduringly sustainable future for all”. Elizabeth Thompson, Executive Director of the Buckminster Fuller Institute, explains:
We’re looking for comprehensive anticipatory design solutions that address multiple problems without creating new ones down the road - integrated strategies dealing with key social, economic, environmental, policy and cultural issues. Our entry criteria is deeply inspired by what Fuller termed comprehensive anticipatory design science - a methodological approach to solving complex problems that we feel holds an important key to how innovators need to be thinking about the design of strategies if they are to have a transformative effect on the system as a whole.
This vision moves beyond traditional problem solving approaches. We need more than just a purely technical solution to energy problems, for example. We need better design of technical products and systems, but we also need to create the right policies, incentives, and other components of a holistic solution that creates “an enduringly sustainable future for all”. Engineering Systems is one field that seeks to link traditional engineering analysis and design with other disciplines to arrive at comprehensive solutions; you can read more about engineering systems in this earlier post.
I’m thrilled to see the BF Institute’s continued devotion of resources and support to innovative design solutions that address some of our most important problems, particularly now with the interdisciplinary emphasis. Looking outside our own discipline, whether it’s engineering, economics, health care, or something else, can be a real challenge. But it’s at the interfaces between disciplines, I believe, that the greatest opportunities lie. We’ve created nicely partitioned disciplinary silos to work within, and have developed tremendous depth of knowledge within these boundaries. We will open the door to greater progress if we start to look directly at the boundaries, and perhaps allow them some permeability and pliability.
Posted: August 21st, 2009 | Filed under: Design, Sustainability | 2 Comments »
Frank Wicks gives a nice history of the “Oil Age” in this month’s issue of Mechanical Engineering magazine. His article traces the rise of petroleum in modern society, and discusses challenges we face today. He describes early medicinal uses of petroleum by Seneca Indians, the first commercial drilling, and the transition to ubiquitous petroleum use. In the early stages of the oil age, kerosene for lighting was a dominant petroleum product, and natural gas and gasoline were wasted byproducts. In 1879, “Thomas Edison predicted the end of oil when he invented the light bulb”, but this was of course on the heels of internal combustion engines and the phenomenal expansion of petroleum consumption that helps fuel our modern economy.
Wicks discusses how oil supplies are bounded: “Although oil has been found … at many locations, it should always be recognized to be a finite resource because we can burn it far faster than nature can replace it.” In fact, this issue was recognized very early on. Wicks explains that “Henry Ford feared that gasoline from oil would not last long enough to sustain a rapidly growing auto industry, and started research for alternatives.” While there has been enough gasoline to fuel a booming auto industry for more than a century, it will not last forever. Some predict that we are near peak oil, evidenced by the current production rates and the declining rate of discovery. Estimates of how much longer petroleum supplies will last vary widely. Wicks cites one estimate that postulates that:
…the world started the Oil Age with about two trillion barrels of recoverable oil. About half of that has been extracted. The remaining trillion barrels represent about a 30-year supply at the current rate of consumption and will be much more difficult to recover. The fundamental problem is that oil is too good. It is required for most things that we do. The alternatives are mostly inferior or less acceptable. Adapting to the next half and the end of the Oil Age may be the greatest challenge our civilization has ever had to face.
Regardless of how much is actually left, the amount is finite and irreplaceable. It will be increasingly difficult (and damaging) to recover, meaning that we will not be able to keep up current rates of consumption. In addition, we rely on petroleum for far more than fuel. It is feedstock for countless products (think of how many things are made using petroleum-derived plastics and chemicals). It may not happen tomorrow, or perhaps not even in some of our lifetimes, but at some point petroleum will become scarce and very expensive. How are we going to transition to alternatives? Clearly, the earlier we start, the easier the transition will be. And if we curtail petroleum use for fuel sooner than later, then perhaps we can prolong the transition to alternatives for petroleum-derived plastics and chemicals.
Wicks’ article focused on the issue of petroleum finiteness, which is only one factor compelling us to curb consumption. When we combine finiteness with national security, climate change, and other relevant issues, it’s clear we need to take action and make rapid progress. We’ve grown accustomed to the ease of oil, and change to something different can intimidating, but these changes can also be exciting opportunities to create a cleaner, more sustainable world to live in. These changes could even be liberating, leading to better quality of life for more people.
One interesting aspect of this article is its audience: engineers. It’s essential that this audience recognizes the importance of moving (quickly) toward a sustainable way of living. Engineers are the folks who can develop the alternatives we need. But creating alternatives won’t automatically make society sustainable; alternatives need to be implemented and used widely. The rest of us need to support efforts to create complete solutions that combine technical advances with the right public policy, the right incentives, and enough popular support to help wean us off petroleum (and other unsustainable practices). Supporting these efforts is an important way to amplify our individual impact.
Posted: August 19th, 2009 | Filed under: Energy, Policy, Sustainability | No Comments »
Solar cars designed specifically to race in competitions such as the North American Solar Challenge or the Green Global Challenge (previously the World Solar Challenge) must somehow move at freeway speeds with less power than a typical hairdryer. Building these vehicles is a grand exercise in energy efficient design, and demonstrates what’s possible when engineers focus on producing maximum results with very limited power consumption. This is the third installment in a series that discusses several strategies solar car designers use to squeeze the most performance out of a vehicle-sized solar array. As with the larger energy system that powers our homes, vehicles, and factories, the best solution is not necessarily to focus only on producing more (ideally renewable) power, but also to identify and eliminate waste in systems that use energy. Designing for energy efficiency is a very cost-effective strategy to addressing energy problems.
One significant source of energy consumption in cars is tire rolling resistance. Basically, it takes some amount of force to roll a tire forward, even if you are not accelerating or going uphill. A simplified model of rolling resistance is:
This equation describes how much force is required to roll a tire forward at a constant speed on a flat road; this force is called rolling resistance . It depends on two things: the vertical load supported by the tire (i.e., the normal force ), and the coefficient of rolling resistance . The normal force depends on how weight is distributed in your car, and the rolling resistance is a function of tire design (and is also influenced by things like temperature, speed, and tire slip). Rolling resistance goes up proportionately with both normal force and with . We would like to reduce rolling resistance in order to reduce the energy consumed while driving. It’s easy to see that one way to do this is to reduce how much a car weighs, which reduces . Suppose we’ve eliminated as much vehicle mass as possible, and still want to reduce rolling resistance further. How do we reduce ? To understand this, let’s have a look at where rolling resistance comes from.
When rubber tires roll over the road they deform. The spot that touches the road (the contact patch) is flattened just a little due to the force of the car pushing down. Imagine what happens to one piece of rubber in your tire as the tire rolls on the ground. Looking at the drawing below, at position 1, the piece of rubber is slightly curved. As the tire rolls, the piece of rubber moves into position 2, and it starts to deform. By the time it gets to position 3, it’s pretty much flat, and then as it moves through position 4 to position 5, it returns to its original shape.
All the rubber in the tire tread and sidewalls goes through some type of deformation with each revolution of the tire. It takes energy to deform rubber. We get most of that energy back when the rubber ’springs’ back into shape. But rubber is not exactly like a spring; you don’t get back all the energy you put into it. Rubber is what we call viscoelastic. The elastic part of viscoelastic is the springy part. Something has elastic behavior if it springs back into shape after being deformed. The viscous part means that when something is deformed, energy is lost, and resistance to deformation increases with how fast you try to deform it. Think of stirring a pot of honey; if you stir it slowly it doesn’t take much effort, but if you try to stir it fast the viscosity of the honey makes it harder to stir. Where does all the energy go from stirring? The honey doesn’t ’spring back’, so you can’t recover the energy like you can with a spring. The energy from stirring was converted to heat; the honey became a little bit warmer.
Tires exhibit both viscous and elastic behavior. Some of the energy is recovered when the rubber springs back into shape after rolling through the contact patch (point 3). Due to the viscous nature of rubber, there is extra resistance to deformation, as well as resistance to returning to its normal shape. The energy used to overcome this extra resistance is converted to heat; bending rubber back and forth makes it heat up (sort of like stirring the honey). Have you ever noticed how tires get warm after driving? The energy that warms your tires is energy lost. How can we minimize this lost energy (and reduce rolling resistance)? There are three main approaches:
- Reduce tire deformation: if tire rubber is deformed less, then less energy will be consumed. This can be accomplished by increasing tire pressure (one important reason to make sure your tires are inflated properly). It’s important not to over-inflate tires, however, as this could degrade handling and ride quality, compromise safety, and accelerate tire wear. Tire deformation can also be reduced by adjusting tire design, that is, changing its shape and what it’s made of.
- Reduce how much tire is deformed: narrower tires and tires with thinner tread have less rubber that moves in and out of the contact patch, reducing how much energy is lost from tire deformation. There are tradeoffs, however. Narrow tires may not handle as well, and thinner tread reduces durability.
- Reduce rubber ‘viscosity’: using a harder rubber compound can help shift tire behavior closer to purely elastic, meaning that a greater proportion of energy that goes into deforming rubber is elastically recovered. Again, there is a tradeoff. Harder rubber compounds may not grip the road as well as softer compounds.
Some tire manufactures have created tire specifically for solar cars, with emphasis on ultra-low rolling resistance. Solar car tires are thin, high-pressure tires with hard rubber compounds. They have rolling resistance coefficients as low as 0.0025, whereas high efficiency passenger car tires have coefficients near 0.006, and typical passenger car and light truck tires have coefficients much higher than that. To give you a sense of the legendary efficiency of solar car tires, I was contacted by engineers interested in using solar car tires on bicycles they were developing for breaking human-powered speed records. Solar car tires are more efficient than racing bicycle tires.
Below is a photo of a solar car tire along with a view of the suspension (this is a photo of the Stanford solar car from several years ago). Notice the electric hub motor just to the right of the wheel. There is a direct connection between electric motor and wheel; no drive shafts, gears, belts or chains to sap energy.
The next photo shows a pile of solar car tires. Since these tires are optimized for energy efficiency, they don’t last very long. They must be replaced frequently, and it takes a large pile of tires to make it through a long cross-country solar car race.
Solar car tires are intended for specialized racing vehicles, and are obviously impractical for passenger vehicle applications. Nevertheless, we can take lessons from their design to help improve efficiency of production vehicles. Maybe we could move toward higher pressure tires, and use more advanced suspension design to help counteract the harsher ride from stiffer, high pressure tires. As we make other vehicle aspects more efficient (such as aerodynamics or powertrain design), the energy lost through rolling resistance will become an increasingly important factor, and is an opportunity for improvement.
Posted: August 11th, 2009 | Filed under: Design, Energy, Sustainability, Transportation | 5 Comments »