.

CU Hyperloop
2019 Technical Report

Released July 29, 2019

Documentation updated as of January 11, 2019
 Forward
Each year, CU Hyperloop releases a technical report detailing the team’s design for the Hyperloop Pod Competition
hosted by SpaceX and The Boring Company. While the concepts discussed herein have not changed since mid January,
details of their implementation as well as more detailed analysis have been conducted in preparation for the 2020
competition. Please direct any requests for clarification or additional detail to cuhyperloop@colorado.edu.

I
Contents
I Introduction 1
I.A Team Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
I.B CU Hyperloop Team Members and Advisers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

II Changes Since PDB 2

II.A Cold Gas Thruster Tank Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
II.B Propulsion Plumbing Layout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
II.C Fixture Mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
II.D Levitation Ski Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
II.E Removal of the Low Speed Crawl Mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
II.F Notes on the Sling Launch System (SLS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

III Current Project Status 3

IV Pod Design and Analysis 3

IV.A Top-Level Pod Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
IV.A.1 Pod Dimensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
IV.A.2 Pod Mass Breakdown by Subsystem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
IV.A.3 Pod Power Breakdown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
IV.B Material Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
IV.C Mechanical Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
IV.D The Structural Frame . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
IV.E Stability Mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
IV.F Braking Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
IV.F.1 Braking Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
IV.F.2 Brake Design and Deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
IV.F.3 Thermal Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
IV.G Propulsion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
IV.G.1 Propulsion Design Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
IV.G.2 Design Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
IV.G.3 Nozzle Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
IV.G.4 Pressure Vessel and Pneumatic System Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
IV.G.5 Propulsion System Analysis and Modeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
IV.G.6 Trajectory Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
IV.G.7 Additional Propulsion Subsystem Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
IV.G.8 Propulsion System Mass and Cost Budgets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
IV.H Navigation and Sensing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
IV.H.1 Navigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
IV.H.2 Position Determination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
IV.H.3 Sensor List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
IV.I Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
IV.I.1 Electronic Control Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
IV.J Pod Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
IV.J.1 Software Control States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
IV.J.2 Braking Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
IV.K Aerodynamics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
IV.K.1 Shell Design Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
IV.K.2 Design Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
IV.L Shell Flow Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
IV.L.1 Shell Structural and Performance Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
IV.L.2 Shell Design Interfaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
IV.L.3 Shell Manufacturing Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
IV.M Levitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

I
 IV.M.1 Levitation Subsystem Design Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
IV.M.2 Design Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
IV.M.3 Levitation Analysis and Modeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
IV.M.4 Levitation Subsystem Modeling Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
IV.M.5 Levitation Modeling Next Steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
IV.M.6 Levitation Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
IV.M.7 Levitation Design Interface Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
IV.M.8 Levitation Subsystem Mass and Cost Budgets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
IV.N Structural Analysis on the Frame as a Whole . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
IV.N.1 Analysis during Acceleration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
IV.N.2 Analysis during Braking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
IV.N.3 Analysis in the Event of a Crash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
IV.N.4 Anticipated Vibration Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
IV.N.5 Actions Taken as a Result of the Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
IV.O Structural Analysis of Pod Features and Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
IV.O.1 Thrust Plate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
IV.O.2 Actions Taken as a Result of the Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
IV.O.3 Thrust Nozzle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
IV.O.4 Brakes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
IV.O.5 Horizontal Fixture Mechanism, Z-Bar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
IV.O.6 Horizontal Fixture Mechanism, Axle Mount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
IV.O.7 Horizontal Fixture Mechanism, Spring Mount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
IV.O.8 Horizontal Fixture Mechanism Assembly Mount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
IV.O.9 Vertical Fixture Mechanism, Z-Bar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
IV.O.10 Vertical Fixture Mechanism, Axle Mount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
IV.O.11 Vertical Fixture Mechanism, Spring Mount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
IV.O.12 Vertical Fixture Mechanism Assembly Mount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
IV.O.13 Ski Wheel Mechanism, Z-Bar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
IV.O.14 Actions Taken as a Result of the Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
IV.O.15 Ski Wheel Mechanism, Axle Mount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
IV.O.16 Ski Wheel Mechanism, Spring Mount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
IV.O.17 Maglev Ski . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
IV.P Payload Capability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

V Sling Design and Analysis 88

V.A Top-Level Sling Launch System (SLS) Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
V.B Dimensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
V.B.1 SLS Mass Breakdown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
V.B.2 SLS Testing and Validation plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
V.C Material Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
V.D Structural Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
V.D.1 Analysis during Acceleration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
V.D.2 Analysis in the Event of a Failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
V.D.3 Anticipated Vibration Environments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
V.E Track Fixture Mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
V.F Sensor List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
V.G Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
V.G.1 Electronic Control Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
V.G.2 Intra-SLS Communications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
V.G.3 Software Control States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
V.G.4 Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
V.H Spring Matrix Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
V.H.1 Spring Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
V.I Link to Pod . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

II
 V.I.1 Electrical Connections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
V.I.2 Communications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

VI Pod Trajectory Analysis 96

VI.A Speed vs. Position . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
VI.B Acceleration vs. Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
VI.C Speed vs. Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
VI.D Position vs. Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

VII Functional Testing Program 99

VII.A Mechanical Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
VII.B Electrical Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
VII.C Propulsion Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
VII.D Levitation Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
VII.E Software . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
VII.F Top-Level Integration and Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

VIII Production Schedule 99

IX Financial Plans 106

IX.A Current Sponsors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
IX.A.1 $10,000 and Above . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
IX.A.2 $1,000 and Above . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
IX.A.3 $500 and Above . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

X Scalability Analysis 108

X.A Scaling Physical Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
X.B Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
X.C Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

XI Competition Day Procedures 109

XI.A Transportation to California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
XI.B Staging Area to Track . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
XI.C Ready-To-Launch Checklist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
XI.C.1 CRITICAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
XI.C.2 SECONDARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
XI.D Ready-To-Remove Checklist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
XI.D.1 Pod Pre-Removal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
XI.D.2 Pod Removal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
XI.D.3 SLS Removal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
XI.E Track to Exit Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
XI.E.1 Pod . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
XI.E.2 SLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

XII Stored Energy and Hazardous Materials Usage 110

XII.A Batteries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
XII.A.1 Pod . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
XII.A.2 SLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
XII.B Pressure Vessels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
XII.C Springs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
XII.D Hazardous Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

XIII Safety Features 111

XIII.A Braking Inhibits During Acceleration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
XIII.A.1 Hardware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

III
 XIII.A.2 Software . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
XIII.B Power Loss Mitigation Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
XIII.C In the Event of Rapid Tube Pressurization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
XIII.D System Fault Tolerance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
XIII.D.1 Brakes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
XIII.D.2 Levitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
XIII.D.3 Power Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
XIII.D.4 Control Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
XIII.D.5 Propulsion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
XIII.E Single Points of Failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
XIII.E.1 Pod . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
XIII.F Recovery Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
XIII.G Manual Pod-Stop Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

XIV Vacuum Compatibility Analysis 113

XV Major Modifications from the 2018 Season 113

XV.A Mechanical . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
XV.B Electrical . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
XV.C Propulsion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
XV.D Aerodynamics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
XV.E Levitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
XV.F Computer Modeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
XV.G SLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

IV
 I. Introduction

A. Team Description
CU Hyperloop is a Hyperloop competition team from the University of Colorado Boulder. Founded in 2017, this
year will be the team’s 2nd year competing in the SpaceX Hyperloop Pod Competition. CU Hyperloop has a team
website (cuhyperloop.com) and a presence on Instagram (@CUHyperloop). We have a strong desire to share the
knowledge we gain from our designs with others, and our technical documentation is released on our website at the
conclusion of each competition season.

B. CU Hyperloop Team Members and Advisers

The team is made up of approximately 30 members and 4 official advisers.
Advisers:
• Arielle Blum; Electrical, Computer, and Energy Engineering
• Phil Larson; College of Engineering and Applied Science Dean’s Office
• Dr. Jay McMahon; Aerospace Engineering Sciences
• Dr. Francisco López Jiménez; Aerospace Engineering Sciences
• Dr. James Nabity: Aerospace Engineering Sciences
The student team members are broken up into 7 main subteams:
Project Manager: Nicholas (Cole) Kenny
Aerodynamics, Propulsion, and Levitation: Led by Jack Maydan
• Aditya Gopalan (Aerodynamics)
• Ahmed Adam (Propulsion)
• Aleksey Volkov (Aerodynamics)
• Ashley Montalvo (Propulsion)
• Dan Wagner (Propulsion)
• Derrick Choi (Levitation)
• Dishank Kathuria (Levitation)
• Stephen Peng (Levitation)
• Trevor Weschler (Aerodynamics)
• W. Hunter Daboll (Levitation)
Electrical: Led by Meg Vader
• Douglas Anderson (Embedded Software)
• Jacob Melonis (Hardware)
• Larry Manalo (Hardware)
• Lindsay Walton (Embedded Software)
• Manuel Cereijido (Hardware)
• Marika Schubert (Hardware)
• Mason Darveaux (Hardware)
Mechanical: Led by Alexis Wall and Nicholas (Cole) Kenny
• Forrest Barnes (Design)
• Jordan Hammer (Systems Integration)
• Lucas de Vito (Design)
• Nick Powell (Design)
• Vicki Hurd (Design)
Sling Launch System: Led by Nolan Ferguson
• Christian Carrillo (Structure)
• Le Yu (Spring Selection)
Software: Led by Corbin Peters
• Dan Koris (Firmware)
A number of the above team members also serve on additional subgroups:
Team Leads:
• Alexis Wall
• Corbin Peters
 • Jack Maydan
• Meg Vader
• Nicholas (Cole) Kenny
• Nolan Ferguson
Safety:
• Dan Wagner
• Jordan Hammer
• Marika Schubert
• Nicholas (Cole) Kenny
Electrical Senior Projects: Led by Marika Schubert, advised by Arielle Blum
• Douglas Anderson
• Larry Manalo
• Lindsay Walton
• Meg Vader

II. Changes Since PDB

The CU Hyperloop team has made a number of design changes since PDB which are worth noting. The design
changes were driven by a number of factors including SpaceX PDB feedback, professional engineering feedback through
informal design critique sessions, internal design improvements, and commercial supplier availability, compliance, and
certifications.

A. Cold Gas Thruster Tank Selection

The propulsion subsystem uses high pressure nitrogen tanks for thrust generation by expelling the gas. At PDB the
intent was to use three hyper-light tanks which were provided by Meyer CD from Denmark. These tanks had unsurpassed
performance and energy density storage, but were unable to be used due to their certification being incompatible with
the competition rules. Infinite Composites, a second vendor, was contacted and began development for three custom
replacement tanks, but manufacturing lead time was unacceptable. Thus, the team has arrived at an alternative solution,
to use one very large single tank which supports a higher pressure and is a COTS product from Steelhead Composites, a
local company. While there are substantial mass penalties to the system, the higher fuel volume and energy density still
allow the propulsion system to reach the 400 mph target.

B. Propulsion Plumbing Layout

After confirmation of the final tank choice, the plumbing and thrust actuation systems for the propulsion subsystem
were completely reworked. These designs were updated to conform to the released rules and regulations as well as make
a strong push for fault tolerance towards accidental firing. The resulting system now has physical inhibits which are
three fault tolerant during ground ops, and two fault tolerant once primed for launch.

C. Fixture Mechanism
The mechanical subsystem employs a series of wheels and springs to help affix the pod to the track and prevent it
from losing course. At PDB the plan was to use linear springs at a perpendicular angle to the direction of motion. Post
PDB these were revised to employ a stiffer extension spring and linkage system so that the vehicle can more safely
encounter and surmount square edge bumps. It also provides additional compliance with the levitation design which
was not previously discussed.

D. Levitation Ski Design

At PDB the levitation system used two large skis with numerous sets of cubic magnets arranged in linear halbach
arrays. Post PDB it was found that the system was substantially oversized and over mass. The design was changed to
use four independent skis, one in each corner. Each ski houses a relatively small 5 magnet linear halbach array which is
capable of generating the necessary lifting force at a speed below 5 m/s.

2
E. Removal of the Low Speed Crawl Mechanism
For PDB, a deployable drive motor was included to allow the pod to crawl to the final 100 ft of the track to fulfill
competition requirements. Due to it’s complexities and additional mass, this system was removed and replaced with a
system which will determine when to brake in order to stop the pod within the required 100 ft of the track exit.

F. Notes on the Sling Launch System (SLS)

The team has decided to continue development of the SLS since PDB, but have designed the pod such that the use of
the SLS is not necessary. In this way, should engineering resources get tighter down the road, SLS development can be
put on hold without endangering the competition-readiness of the team.
However, we believe that the sensors and battery on the current SLS would still be useful to have in the tube at
competition, so if the decision is made to put the SLS development on hold, the spring matrix (described further in
Section V) and associated boost hardware will be dropped but the power distribution and monitoring hardware will
remain.

III. Current Project Status

CU Hyperloop has made significant progress this year since PDB and is planning to construct their pod design
during the Spring semester. Table 1 lists a number of major components and their status within the design lifecycle.

Table 1 Status of important CU Hyperloop design components

Subsystem Component Conceptual Analysis Prototype Purchased Delivered

Propulsion Tank Y Y N Y Awaiting delivery
Propulsion Plumbing Y Y N Allocated N
Aerodynamics Shell Y Y N N N
Electrical Batteries Y Y N N N
Electrical Control Board Y Y Y Y Y
Electrical Power Board Y Y N Allocated N
Electrical Endpoint Boards Y Y N Allocated N
Electrical Networking Y Y N Y Y
Mag-Lev Magnets Y Y Y N N
Mag-Lev Ski Y Y N Partial Partially delivered
Mechanical Frame Y Y In Progress N N
Mechanical Tank Supports Y N N N N
Mechanical Fixture Mechanism Y Y N Partially Allocated N
Mechanical Brakes Y Partial N N N
Mechanical Electrical Mount Y Y N Allocated N

A full production schedule can be found in Section VIII.

IV. Pod Design and Analysis

A. Top-Level Pod Design

1. Pod Dimensions
The complete side and frontal views of the pod are shown in Fig. (1) and (2) with the highest level dimensions
labeled. The pod dimensions are suitable for the 1.27 m minimum width, 1.37 m tall test track.

3
 Fig. 1 Top level dimensions: side of pod

Fig. 2 Top level dimensions: front of pod

The pod dimensions shown in Fig. (1) and (2) are expressed in Table (2).

4
 Table 2 Overall pod dimensions

Dimension Length [m] Max Allowed [m]

Height 0.638 1.37
Width 0.745 1.27
Length 3.81 7.31

2. Pod Mass Breakdown by Subsystem

The overall mass of the pod including fuel for propulsion is 383.77 kg. The dry mass of the pod after the fuel is fully
exhausted is 277.67 kg; the dry mass is representative of the mass of the pod for most of the run as expulsion of the
propulsion fuel is short in duration. This is slightly over the pod pass that was used to run the propulsion and levitation
models (375 kg was used for those model, see Section IV.G and IV.M) and the team is working to reduce the overall pod
mass to 375 kg.

Table 3 Overall pod mass breakdown

Subsystem Component Quantity Mass [kg] Total Mass [kg]

Propulsion Tank 1 141 141
Propulsion Fuel N/A 106.1 106.1
Propulsion Plumbing N/A 18.6 18.6
Aerodynamics Shell 1 30 30
Aerodynamics Shell Hardware N/A 0.1 0.1
Electrical Batteries 4 0.56 2.24
Electrical Other N/A 5 5
Mag-Lev Magnets 20 0.49 9.84
Mag-Lev Ski 4 0.4 1.6
Mechanical Frame and Tank Support 1 20 20
Mechanical Stability and Fixture N/A 10.87 10.87
Mechanical Brakes 10 3.52 35.2
Mechanical Electrical Mount N/A .22 .22
Misc. Mounting Hardware N/A 3 3
Total 383.77

3. Pod Power Breakdown

Table 4 shows the power requirements of the pod’s batteries, which is much lower than may be expected as the sling
will be powering the pod for the majority of the time the system is in the test track. This power breakdown budgets the
pod switching to internal power shortly before launch, with about a 7 minute full run time. This should be plenty for
disconnecting from sling power before launch, the run, and assessing the condition of the pod at the end of the run, as
the batteries have a combined power capacity of 240 W. The pod may require additional power after the initial health
and safety assessment at the end of the run to disengage the brakes.

5
 Table 4 Pod power breakdown by system and device

Subsystem Device Quantity Device Power [W] Total Energy for all Devices [Wh]
Mechanical Brake Solenoid 10 3 0.08
Mechanical Electric Low Power Motor 1 36 0.60
Mechanical Vibe Sensors 2 0.05 0.01
Mechanical Mechanical Total 0.69
Power Battery Management System 1 0.24 0.24
Power Power Distribution Board 1 6.56 0.74
Power DC-DC 100V->3V3 Converter 2 0.02 0.01
Power DC-DC 100V->5V Converter 3 0.11 0.04
Power DC-DC 100V->12V Converter 2 0.15 0.03
Power DC-DC 100V->24V Converter 4 3.64 1.62
Sensing Temperature Sensors 2 0.003 0.0002
Sensing Inertial Measurement Unit 1 0.053 0.02
Control Control Board 1 0.13 0.01
Control Wireless Board 1 24.00 2.67
Control Status LED 3 0.15 0.05
Control Arduino UNO 1 0.23 0.03
Sensing Laser Sensors 2 0.96 0.01
Electrical Electrical Total 5.46
Propulsion Propulsion Valves 3 6.50 0.05
Propulsion Tank Pressure 3 0.24 0.08
Propulsion Tank Temperature 3 0.30 0.10
Propulsion RTD Driver 3 0.02 0.01
Propulsion Propulsion Total 0.24

B. Material Usage
The materials selected to construct the pod are lightweight and strong, which allow the pod to move quickly
and remain structurally sound when applied to large forces. The frame of the pod is constructed of aluminum
honeycomb-carbon fiber sandwich panels 1.55 cm thick. This frame material is resistant to bending and breaking under
large applied loads. The shell has a molded carbon fiber exterior to achieve low aerodynamic drag with additional
carbon fiber ribs for structural support. Most other parts, including tank supports and mounts (both electrical and
structural) are Aluminum (Al 6061-T6/T651).
The choice to use aluminum for metal components comes from it’s strength to mass ratio and it’s ease of procurement
and manufacturing. The analysis, discussed in Sections IV.N and IV.O, helped drive material usage when strength was
of particular concern. Notable deviations from the Aluminum (Al 6061-T6/T651) standard occur in the nozzle mount
(titanium due to high thrust loads), and wheels (polyurethane coated).

C. Mechanical Overview
Table 5 is a more detailed look at the mechanical contribution to the overall mass shown in table 3. The 88.02 kg
listed represents the dry mass of the system without taking into account the contributions of electrical, plumbing, and
magnetic levitation.

6
 Table 5 Detailed mass breakdown of mechanical systems

Component Material Mass [kg]

Frame 42.02
Main frame Aluminum Honeycomb 3003 aluminum alloy foil 1.69
Main Frame Carbon Fiber Carbon Fiber 21.16
Tank Support (Throughout) Aluminum 6061-T6/T651 5.27
Tank Support (Rear) Aluminum 6061-T6/T651 4.00
Nozzle Support Titanium (Ti-6Al-4V Class 5) 9.75
Frame Frontal Brace Aluminum 6061-T6/T651 0.145
Brakes 35.2
Housing and Rail Aluminum 6061-T6/T651 5.1
Large Spring Music Wire ASTM A228 1.92
Small Spring Chrome Silicon ASTM A401 .57
Brake Pad Assembly Aluminum 6061-T6/T651 3.2
Hinge Aluminum 6061-T6/T651 1.4
Solenoid Pusher N/A 10
DC Motor N/A 11.6
Fixture Pieces/Other Aluminum 6061-T6/T651 1.41
Stability and Fixture to Rail 10.8
Wheels Al/Polyurethane 0.70
Vertical Mounts Aluminum 6061-T6/T651 3.66
Vertical Suspension Assembly Aluminum 6061-T6/T651 .729
Horizontal Mounts Aluminum 6061-T6/T651 2.14
Horizontal Suspension Assembly Aluminum 6061-T6/T651 .789
Ski Wheel Assembly 2.75
Total 88.02

Figure (3) list of locations within this document to determine what each important component looks like and where
more information can be found on it.
Component Mapping in Document:
1) Fixture Mechanism: Section IV.E
2) Braking System: Section IV.F
3) Propulsion: Section IV.G
4) Aerodynamics (Shell): Section IV.K
5) Magnetic Levitation: Section IV.M

7
 Fig. 3 Undercarriage of pod labeled with components general location

D. The Structural Frame

The frame of the pod consists of a sandwich of 0.5 inch aluminum honeycomb and 3 mm carbon fiber composite
panels arranged to form an I-beam. This gives considerable strength in directions of interest while still remaining
lightweight and still providing plenty of space for mounting internal components. Figure (4) pictures the frame.

Fig. 4 Frame with internal components mounted

8
E. Stability Mechanism
In order to keep the pod aligned with the rail at all times and minimize the affect of disturbances on the pod’s
structure and electronic components, a track fixture system was designed with built-in suspension. This allows for the
shock caused by small discontinuities in the track to be absorbed smoothly. The suspension system is comprised of
three types of wheel assemblies that are all present at the front and rear of the pod. A CAD model of each component
can be seen in Figures (5) through (7).

Fig. 5 Horizontal fixture Fig. 6 Vertical fixture Fig. 7 "Ski" wheel assembly to roll
mechanism to the track mechanism to the track on subtrack

Four vertical fixture mechanisms are located on the underside of the upper flange of the rail. These components are
placed symmetrically about the center line of the track and provide cushion to movement imparted on the pod along the
Z-axis (up and down). Likewise, two sets (total of 4) of horizontal fixture components brace the web of the I-beam (rail)
at both ends of the pod and control for rotational movement in the XY-plane (side to side). A similar component is
placed at each corner of the pod oriented so that the wheels touch the subtrack. This assembly is meant to supplement
magnetic levitation and keep the pod level when and if it is not levitating.

Though implemented to achieve different purposes, each of these assemblies shares a similar design. Each fixture
mechanism assembly is designed to support 445 N of force imparted co-planar to the perimeter of the wheel(s). For a
pod of 383.77 kg traveling at roughly 179 ms ( 400 mph), the force the pod is subjected to when crossing the connection
between to I-beams is less than 445 N. The suspension system is a spring, stretched to allow 0.762 cm of give in the
direction along the spring’s axis. Since the vertical and horizontal fixture mechanisms do not allow for more than 0.762
cm of lateral movement of the pod in any direction, there is high confidence that the pod will stay fixed to the track and
experience minimal jerk. The Ski wheels are further supported to handle up to 2200 N each, providing a factor of safety
of approximately 2 when supporting the entire weight of the pod.

Each of the three systems shown use the same custom wheels made of high speed rated polyurethane material and
manufactured by Plantech. The bearings used in the wheels are capable of rotating at 36000 rpm; with 2" diameter
wheels, the bearings suit the pod’s top speed of 400 mph. Additionally, they all use the same spring and axle mounting
parts, making them fairly interchangeable, as the only parts that differ between them are the z-bar structural plates.
The reason for the custom wheel design and mounts are because of the specialize bearing. SKF high precision
hybrid ball bearings (part number: 6000/HC5C3) are used in order to support the high rotational loads associated with
the hyperloop pod. Additionally, custom aluminum assembly mounts are used instead of basic L-brackets to include the
gussets which increase strength, important because of the moment arm that the fixture mechanism creates due to it’s
mounting configuration.

F. Braking Mechanisms

1. Braking Overview
The brakes employed are to deliver a spring loaded clamping force designed to achieve an almost entirely passive
braking system. The basic concept involves loading compression springs prior to beginning the run using DC motors,
locking the spring in place with a hinge, then sending a signal to release the latch with a solenoid when braking is
necessary. This allows a single signal to slow the pod to a stop rather than relying on continuous power from a motor
throughout the braking period. One side of a brake assembly is shown in Fig. (8).

9
 Fig. 8 The right half of the brake assembly in a non-clamped position

The brake force required to stop within 100 feet of the end of the test track after attaining a maximum speed of 400
mph (this occurs 900 m into the track) is 10 kN. We introduce a factor of safety of 2 and therefore double the clamping
force required from 10 kN to 20 kN. To clamp down on the web of the track with 20 kN, 10 kN of clamping force is
required on each side. This sets up the problem to be solved and the following section describes the solution to this
problem.

2. Brake Design and Deployment

A diagram of the brakes clamping down on the I-beam is shown in Fig. (9) where the I-beam is orange for clarity.
The brake pad housing is translucent on the right side to demonstrate the extension of the hinge resisting spring and that
the hinge is unlatched. This allows the full force of the spring to be applied.

10
 Fig. 9 Brakes clamping down onto the web of the rail to brake

The springs are aligned 45 degrees off of the I-beam in order to generate a less substantial moment at the base of the
assembly than would be present when exerting a normal force. This however, means that the clamping force is equal to
Fs sin(45) where Fs is the force applied by the spring. So each side must exert a force of 14.14 kN instead of 10 kN in
order to brake with the proper force. Since five sets of brakes are scattered across the bottom of the pod, each set of
brakes must exert 2.83 kN of force on either side of the rail. A compression spring was custom designed to meet this
force requirement and exerts 2.83 kN at compression length of 2.28cm. The hinge design relied on force and moment
balances composed of the normal force on the brake pad, the subsequent frictional force (graphite coated aluminum
againt steel yields 0.1 coefficient of static friction), reaction forces at the axle, and the unknown force of the small spring
inserted into the brake pad allowing the hinge to stay in a locked position. From this system of equations, the small spring
force was decided and custom designed to fit in a small space but offer the necessary force. A final system of equations
determined that a torque of 25.86 Nm is required to remove the latch from it’s placement and allow the springs to
extend and clamp the rail. This torque was achieved by attaching a solenoid to pull the hinge 27.4 cm from the pin. The
solenoid pulls with a force of 98 N which generates the right amount to get the hinge moving. This torque is not too great
for the material of the hinge (Aluminum 6061), and it will experience negligible deformation. From there, the normal
force of the spring takes control and forces the hinge out of its cavity instantaneously. Galvanized steel wire connects
the solenoid to the end of the hinge so that the hinge cannot rotate freely and lodge itself in a bad place upon being unlatched.

Figure (10) shows the right half of a brake set in it’s latched (non-clamping) and unlatched (clamping) state. The
brake pads were chosen to a softer aluminum alloy than Al 6061 in order to meet SpaceX braking requirements but
provide a long-lasting, heat tolerating surface to clamp against the rail.

11
Fig. 10 Hinge-spring assembly view of right half of a brake assembly: non-clamping (left) and clamping (right)
brakes

3. Thermal Analysis
A basic hand calculation is done to determine the heat rise in the Aluminum alloy brake pad as it brings the pod to
rest from 178.8 ms (400 mph). Future analysis will refine this model with the use of ANSYS Fluid. For now, a simple
calculation ensures us that the brake pad is not overheating. A work-energy balance is employed to determine the work
done by the rail onto the brake pads due to friction. For each brake pad initially traveling at 400 mph the initial kinetic
energy is Vi = 12 mv 2 where m is the mass of the pod (323.8 kg), v is velocity (178.8 m/s), and Vi is initial kinetic energy.
The initial kinetic energy is the only initial energy and it is all transferred to work done by the pod comes to rest. This
work done dissipates in the form of thermal energy so we can say that the initial kinetic energy as the brakes first clamp
down is equal to the thermal energy absorbed by the brakes by the time the pod stops. Therefore, the thermal energy,
1 2 1 m
Q = Vi = mv = (383.8kg)(178.8 )2 = 6.135 × 106 J (1)
2 2 s
The first law of thermodynamics is then applied to determine the change in temperature of the brake pad from when
it clamps down to when the pod stops. The heat transfer coefficient for aluminum, c = 900 kg·K
J
. This allows us to solve
for ∆T with the following equation:

Q 6.135 × 106 J
∆T = = = 17.76K (2)
m·c 383.8 · 900
This means the brake pads raise 17.76 K during braking. This heat rise does not affect the material, nor its capability
to perform. It is important to note that all electronics which may be negatively affected by a temperature rise are not
directly in contact with the brake plate and will not experience a (noticeable) rise in temperature. This is because
conduction is the only significant method of heat transfer here, as the plate is not radiating heat and the near vacuum
environment eliminates the affects of convection. Because the thickness of the plate and many parts separating the DC
motor from the brake plate, almost all of the heat will be dissipated within the aluminum alone.

12
G. Propulsion

1. Propulsion Design Description

The CU Hyperloop propulsion subsystem has the objective of propelling the pod to its top speed. Additionally,
because of the limited track length, the pod must accelerate rapidly in order to provide ample time for safe braking.
The design solution is a high pressure cold gas thruster. This solution was chosen because of its large potential energy
storage, which satisfies the top speed condition, and its ability to accelerate rapidly, which satisfies the ample break time
condition. The previous design was culled down to its present solution to promote simplicity and safety by minimizing
part count and necessary interfaces. One large carbon fiber tank with a volume of 270 L and a maximum working
pressure of 350 bar is the heart of the system, providing a stored potential energy of over 9 MJ. The tank will be filled
with nitrogen, an estimated mass of 106 kg, and expanded through a 2.8575 cm throat via a Rao Optimized Bell Nozzle
with an area ratio of 15. Peak thrust approaches 100 kN, providing an initial acceleration of nearly 250 m/s2 . The
system blows down rapidly, depleting 95% of its thrust capacity within 3 seconds. The propulsion system is capable
of propelling a 375 kg pod to a speed of 180 m/s or approximately 400 mph, any speed delivered by the sling system
will increase the top speed linearly. Below are top, bottom, and oblique renders of the CAD model for the propulsion
subsystem and plumbing - note that dimensions and layout are accurate, however the full parts list is tabulated in Figure
(23).

Fig. 11 Oblique render of the thrust division of the propulsion subsystem

13
 Fig. 12 Top view, render of the thrust division of the propulsion subsystem

Fig. 13 Bottom view, render of the thrust division of the propulsion subsystem

2. Design Requirements
The propulsion subsystem layout was decided upon in order to meet all requirements placed on the propulsion
subsystem by the CU Hyperloop team and by the rules and regulations set forth by SpaceX. Figures (14) through (16)
show a high-level P&ID layout, an engineering drawing which uses industry pneumatic symbology, and an additional,
more digestible, representative diagram for ease of discussion.

14
 Fig. 14 The P&ID layout of the propulsion subsystem

Fig. 15 The engineering drawing for layout of the propulsion subsystem

15
 Fig. 16 The representative layout and subsystem diagram of the propulsion design

The thrust plumbing (pink) consists of two manual valves and a nozzle. The manual valves provide two physical
inhibits to thrust, and each valve is independently controlled by a pneumatic actuator which fails closed in the event of
pressure loss. The section of piping comprised by these two valves and the nozzle is a constant 2.865 cm diameter and
includes the throat of the expansion system. The nozzle is described in the Nozzle Design Section, Section IV.G.3.
The actuation and control system (yellow) allows remote computer inputs to the thrust system. Two electrical valves
are independently controllable by the control board. A pressure relief is included to prevent excess pressure feeding into
the electric valves which could lead to unintended pneumatic actuation. In addition, a manual valve is placed after
the second electrical valve to physically inhibit an electrical control/commanding fault. Excluding electrical/software
inhibits, the propulsion system is three fault tolerant against unintended firing of the thruster during ground operations
and dual fault tolerant once primed for launch.
The sensor suite system (blue) provides the telemetry necessary to monitor the health of the propulsion system
before and during high speed travel. Two pressure release valves are also included in this system to prevent the tank
from exceeding MAWP. In addition, an analog gauge is available to manually verify electrical sensor functionality, and a
tank-vendor provided fill valve is included here.

3. Nozzle Design
In order to obtain the maximum thrust output from the pod and tank system a bell nozzle design was employed. To
create the most efficient nozzle for a vacuum environment the propulsion system was designed to operate with a nozzle
expansion ratio of 15. Carbon fiber being lightweight, easily manufacturable, and rigid under temperature extremes
proved to be the optimal material for the bell nozzle.

16
 Fig. 17 A CAD render of the propulsion subsystem’s nozzle. Note: material is carbon fiber.

A carbon fiber bell-shaped nozzle was chosen after eliminating the possibilities of using a cone or double bell
nozzle. A cone shape was eliminated because its length would exceed the intended length. Upon considering additional
constraints the double bell nozzle was eliminated because although it was more efficient in expansion than a bell nozzle,
it required more space, material, and mass. The desire for efficient expansion and minimized complexity resulted
in selection of a bell nozzle. An optimized bell shape was needed, using the Rao Optimized Contour Application,
equations were calculated for the curves of the entrance and exit sections of the nozzle throat and the bell of the nozzle.
The nozzle expansion ratio () of 15 was chosen based on geometric constraints, such that the total length does not
exceed anticipated length standards when compared to the pod, and to prevent bending moment and vibration structural
concerns. Assuming a maximum length of 20 cm and a basic geometry, the maximum achievable area ratio was
25. Upon conferring with industry experts, it was determined that an area ratio above 10 would provide sufficient
expansion for the cold gas system. Finally, according to the software model (described in Section IV.G.5) the increase in
performance gained by increasing area ratio over 15 was not substantial, and thus the area ratio of 15 was deemed as the
optimal design point. The area at the throat is 6.41 cm2 , and the area at the exit is 96.20 cm2 . Using the throat area and
the expansion ratio, the area of the exit was calculated and this being equal to exit area created by the bell equations
confirmed that the equations were correct. Using the nozzle expansion ratio of 15 and the Rao optimized data inputs
regarding the relationship between expansion ratio and parabola angles, and were determined and these were then used
to calculate the equations for the curves. When calculating the equations for the curves a length ratio relative to a cone
nozzle was needed; an 85% length ratio allows for 99% efficiency, using this upper bound, an 80% ratio was used in
order to best balance the length/space constraints. Using the length ratio a final total length of 12.25 cm was calculated
for the nozzle. The final two equations calculated using the Rao optimization can be seen in Eq. (5) and (4) and were
used to create the bell section of the nozzle.

x(t) = 0.587(1 − t)2 + 3.468(1 − t)t + 2.179t 2 (3)

y(t) = 0.099(1 − t)2 + 4.606(1 − t)t + 4.825t 2 (4)

In order to provide the nozzle with additional support in the case of additional vibrations or forces when in use, a lip
was added to the exit of the bell to allow for more connections if needed in the future. The bell is mounted to a thrust
plate to allow a distribution of the thrust force produced, and with the lip described; further attachments and mounts can
be added if determined necessary during testing.
Lastly, an engineering tool was developed for future use when design optimization choices become available due to
design or performance changes. The tool takes a few simple inputs and outputs the necessary equations for use in 3D
modeling. A screen capture of this tool is in Figure 18

17
 Fig. 18 Propulsion nozzle design tool

The final equations that came from this tool are found in Eq. (5) and (4).

4. Pressure Vessel and Pneumatic System Requirements

In order to provide complete coverage of all competition rules related to the usage of high pressure systems, a table
was developed and used as a guideline for component selection. The table outlines each rule, the necessary values and
Factors of Safety, and the status of the selected component. It was used to select and compare components until all
components met each other’s standards of operation, met all of SpaceX’s regulations and recommendations, and were
capable of the primary goal of the pod, top speed of approximately 400 mph.
There are eight main criteria the propulsion system must satisfy Custom Component Maximum Pressure, Fabricated
Component Maximum Pressure, Hazardous Classification Assessment, Maximum Temperature, Minimum Temperature,
Maximum Set Pressure, Calculation of Quantity Distance, and Calculation of Safe Flow rate. These criteria are
determined by six propulsion subsystem attributes which are Maximum Pressure, Maximum Temperature, Minimum
Temperature, Total Volume, Total Potential Energy, and Maximum Rate of Over Pressure.

Figure (19) are the studies performed on the propulsion main tank and auxiliary tank.

Fig. 19 Propulsion Subsystem Requirements Tool. Red designates an estimated limit rather than a determined
limit.

Note 1: The Safe Distance is an estimate for the Auxiliary Pressure system. The TNT equivalent is only several

18
grams and represents very little danger in terms of shock wave from an explosion.
Note 2: The Minimum and Maximum Temperature estimates are being studied, a high fidelity thermal model is to
be produced. Maximum Temperature will likely be under 30 °C however 60 °C gives plenty of buffer. While thrusting,
there will be a large temperature drop due to the expanding nitrogen. This cooling will only occur for approximately
two seconds giving little time for heat transfer. While the temperature of the gas will reach very low temperatures, the
temperature of components in the system will decrease very little comparably.

For a more in depth explanation of the dangers and hazards that inspire these rules, see the Hazards Section IV.G.7.

5. Propulsion System Analysis and Modeling

Model Functionality Description: While the CU Hyperloop team has two heritage MATLAB models to predict
the propulsion subsystem’s performance during thrusting, a third new model was built post PDB to better predict the
dynamics of this year’s design. All three models do have similar behavioral characteristics and predictions, but the new
model uses different assumptions which better align with the expected real world behavior by taking into account an
number of additional assumptions. As such, it will be the tool used for all of the following analysis.
The assumptions of the system are outlined in Table (6).

Table 6 Assumptions of the updated propulsion model

Ideal gas
Isentropic expansion
1D quasi-steady flow
Adiabatic decompression and flow
Forces of aerodynamic drag, magnetic drag, wheel friction, head loss, and various other parasitic forces are included
Supersonic solution for mach exit number due to nozzle expansion was used

The governing equation for thrust is outlined in Eq. (??).

T = mÛ ∗ Ve + (Pe − Patm ) ∗ Ae (5)

In addition, because the thrust system operates in unregulated blowdown, the study of mass flow rate is vital to
understanding the pressure in the tank over time.
In order to solve for thrust, T, and the three time dependent variables: mass flow, mdot , exit velocity, Ve , and
pressure-at-exit,Pe , a numerical integrator was used. Additional constants in the equation are area of the exit, Ae , and
atmospheric pressure, Patm . This software varies length of time step based on sensitivity of the derivative functions,
then integrates said derivatives over time to calculate the necessary values. At each time step, the full gas state in the
tank, throat, and exit is calculated. This model is a heavily modified version of ODE45 which comes with MATLAB.
Below are three plots which demonstrate the thrust performance of the system as a function of time. Peak thrust
approaches 100 kN, and 95% of gas is exhausted after 3 seconds.

19
 (a) Modeling Result of thrust over time (b) Modeling Result of fuel mass over time

(c) Modeling result of tank pressure over time.

Fig. 20 Modeling Results.

6. Trajectory Analysis
Using the aforementioned model, the variables of acceleration, velocity, and position are tracked vs. time. These
model results were used to size the braking system and determine structural needs during the thrust phase. It is important
to note that while the total mass of the subsystem is high fidelity at this point, mass budget flux is expected in the future.

20
 (d) Modeling result of acceleration over time (e) Modeling result of pod velocity over time

(f) Modeling result of pod position over time. See Note (1). (g) Modeling result of velocity plotted over position. See Note (2).

Fig. 21 Modeling Results. Note (1): In the diagram above, a 10 kN brake force was applied at 900 m down the track, a more in
depth description of the braking functionality is included in Section IV.F. Note (2): Again note that braking forces in the above
diagrams are more accurately described in the mechanical design section.

21
7. Additional Propulsion Subsystem Information
Hazards There are two main hazards for the propulsion pressure vessels, specifically the 270 L tank (footnote: the
Auxiliary Tank has similar risks but contains much less potential energy. The handling procedure for the Auxiliary Tank
will be similar to the main tank). At 350 bar (~5000 psi), the tank contains 9.45 MJ or approximately the equivalent
energy storage as 2.25 kg of TNT. The potential energy stored by the tank represents a significant danger to team
members and nearby onlookers when pressurized.
The potential causes of pressure vessel failure are the following: dropping, fire, projectile impact (penetration), tank
fatigue, plumbing fatigue, poor plumbing connections, and/or valve faults resulting in accidental thrust. These dangers
will be mitigated via the following procedures.

Dropping: The tank will always be transported below 1.5 m from the ground and unpressurized. The loading
procedure at the competition will be improved with SpaceX input in greater detail in order to determine the safest
method and procedure order for fueling and transportation. The tank will always be ‘chained’ in storage or mounted to
the pod frame to avoid accidental tips.
Fire: The main potential source of fire on the pod is from the LiFePo4 batteries. The expected heat of the fire from
these batteries is 550 °C. Once inside the low pressure tube, the chance of the fire spreading is extremely limited by the
lack of oxygen. The materials (carbon fiber, epoxies, plastics, and metals) and the propellant (Nitrogen) are minimally
flammable and are poor fuels. Finally, sources of ignition are nonexistent except for any faults in electrical wiring which
will be carefully inspected for. Electrical component heating is a non-issue as temperatures are not expected to exceed
combustible levels.
Projectiles: Bullet tests have been conducted on this model of tank by the vendor. The tank punctures but releases
slowly and does not explosively rupture. This was a part of the vendor’s certification process.
Fatigue: The tank on the pod will at most be fully pressurized less than 100 times. The tank is certified to withstand
tens of thousands of pressure cycles. The rapid decompression of the tank does not constitute a normal cycle, however,
the manufacturers state that there should be no noticeable effect within the lifespan of the pod. In addition, a detailed
cycle log will be maintained to monitor the tanks health and usage over time.
Plumbing Fatigue: All selected plumbing components will be rated for at least the MAWP and have a burst pressure
of approximately 3 to 4 times greater. Plumbing components will be inspected prior to and following all thruster firings.
The assembly will be leak tested and proof tested to MAWP. In addition, a detailed cycle log will be maintained to
monitor the tanks health and usage over time.
Poor Plumbing Connections: All connections will be tightened the appropriate torque according to their specification
and subsequently leak checked. Teflon tape and additional sealing agents will be used when appropriate. Turn Indicators
will be applied to all connections to enhance the accuracy of visual inspections of the plumbing connections.
Valve Faults: Flow from the tank to the nozzle for thrust is triple fault tolerant during ground operations. Once
primed for launch, two seperate pneumatic actuators create a dual fault tolerant system. Both pneumatically operated
valves are fail close, and all electric valves are fail closed. All of the fault tolerance described above are physical inhibits,
additional electrical inhibits will exist as dictated by the vehicle modes and states.

Due to these dangers, several calculations were performed considering (1) a rapid, catastrophic failure (explosion),
(2) a steady pressure increase (e.g. caused by an increase in temperature), and (3) a pressure drop due to leaking.

Explosion: Based on the energy equivalent in terms of TNT (Trinitrotoluene), the tank at MAWP stores the
same amount of energy as 2.25 kg of TNT. According to the US Department of Homeland of Security (USHS), the
recommended safe distance from a 2.25 kg TNT blast is 70 feet while taking cover and 1200 feet while without cover.
In the event of impending tank failure (likely due to fatigue), we recommend evacuation behind a solid wall at least
100 feet away and contact bomb disposal via 911. If the tank reaches burst pressure (1200 bar) which is equivalent to
7.71 kg of TNT, USHS recommends a distance of 110 feet away with cover and 1700 feet when without cover. The
likelihood of a burst pressure event is minimal and causes (i.e. fire) would allow for adequate time to reach a safe loca-
tion. In this event, we recommend evacuation behind a solid wall at least 150 feet away and contact bomb disposal via 911.

Over Pressurization: Over pressurization can be caused by accidental overfilling or an increase in temperature
after filling. Each pressure relief valve (two total per pressure vessel) allows up to 16 L/s (180 scfm) of nitrogen to be
released. The fill rate of the tank will be less than 16 L/s to mitigate the chance of over pressurization while filling.
While at MAWP (350 bar), 25 W of heating causes an over pressurization of 0.6 bar/s which is balanced by two pressure

22
relief valves. This amount of heating corresponds to an open flame of 850 °C exposed to a 5 cm by 5 cm surface of
the tank. The two mechanical pressure relief valves create a dual fault tolerant system such that at least a 0.3 bar/s
over-pressure is balanced even with one of the relief valves broken.

Pressure Leak: Per Competition rules, stringent leak testing will be performed prior to competition week. The
testing will be documented via video, photo, and written observations of any questionable variations. The testing
procedures for leak testing and thrust testing are described here.

Propulsion Subsystem Testing Thrust Test:

To ensure the thrust from the propulsion tank is being modeled accurately, static thrust firings will be completed
with a university provided thrust stand platform, originally created by the HICKAM senior design team. This platform
was originally designed for hybrid rocket engines (and substantially high thrust), but for Hyperloop purposes the test
stand will be used to measure thrust, pressure, temperature, and mass-flow while the component integrity and reusability
are observed. The following sections are an excerpt from the thrust stand testing procedure, which were adapted to suit
the CU Hyperloop team’s need.
The tanks will first be transported to the chosen test facility, which will most likely be an open field so the thrust
stand can be securely mounted to the ground with stakes. The University of Colorado also maintains a destructive or
catastrophic testing lab which may suit the necessary testing environment. The tank will then be filled with Nitrogen
and pressurized to 350 bar using the university provided fill system. The load cells will be installed on the thrust shield
and connected to a DAQ module. This DAQ module will be further connected to a computer that will run the provided
LabVIEW software to collect data and verify the load cell is working properly. The Nitrogen tank will be secured on the
thrust stand with U-bolt with the throat facing away from the blast shield. Lastly, safety checks will be completed before
testing and will include checking the tank’s pressure, release mechanism, and its secure positioning on the test stand.
These safety checks will greatly reduce the risk of injury and as a secondary precaution all team members will stand at
least 100 feet away, behind solid walls, from the tank during testing in case of tank securement failure.
Along with thrust, pressure, and temperature of the dispelled gas will be measured with the pressure/temperature
sensor, and additional thermocouples installed along the length of the nozzle. The mass flow rate can also be found
since the initial gas volume and thrust over the test duration are known. Once the load cell stops receiving force readings,
it is known that all of the tank’s Nitrogen has been expelled. Below is an image of the university’s thrust stand.

Fig. 22 University provided propulsion thrust stand test setup, electronics not pictured

Leak Test:
A leak test will be conducted to ensure the tank has no leakage areas and the ability to stay pressurized for long
periods of time. The tank will be filled with Nitrogen, pressurized to ~5000 psi (350 bar), its manual valves closed on
both ends, and submerged in water for 15 minutes. If any air bubbles emerge from the tank, it will be known there is a

23
leak and its location can be identified. Due to the large size of this tank, the test will be conducted in the Carlson Gym
pool, with special (but not atypical) permission granted by the university. Since the tank’s maximum allowable working
pressure (MAWP) is rated to ~5000 psi, this test will verify the tank can indeed function at the rated MAWP.
MAWP Test:
As a secondary test, the tank will be filled with Nitrogen, pressurized to ~5000 psi (350 bar), and left pressurized for
6 hours. The initial and final pressure readings of the tank will be compared to determine if there are any slow leaks.

8. Propulsion System Mass and Cost Budgets

The propulsion system components are estimated to weigh 154.12 kg in total. Over 90 percent of the mass is due
to the 270 L COPV. The remainder includes auxiliary pressure system and all plumbing components. The mass is
tabulated below in the Bill of Materials for the Propulsion Subsystem.
The estimated cost is $8088.05. The primary cost is the 270 L COPV at $6250. The Pneumatic Actuators that
control the flow of propellant and the pressure-temperature transducer represent significant additional cost. The costs
are also tabulated below in the Propulsion Bill of Materials, Figure (23).

Fig. 23 The bill of materials table for the propulsion subsystem

H. Navigation and Sensing

The navigation system is required to fulfill the key purpose of telling the pod control system what the inertial
reference frame of the pod is, including position, velocity and acceleration. This is vital to braking at the proper distance
for a safe stop while still reaching the greatest possible velocity. The sensor suite includes the necessary sensors for the
navigation system, as well as sensors required for monitoring health and safety of the pod.

1. Navigation
The pod is equipped with an XSens MTi-10, a high quality IMU which will be used for precise vehicle acceleration
and integral measurements. The pod additionally has a laser stripe detectors on both sides of the pod. The stripe
detectors are simpler and more robust, but provide coarser measurements for position.

2. Position Determination
The IMU will be the primary navigational system for the pod. This system uses high precision acceleration
measurements to determine the pod velocity and position. The IMU position is checked against the laser detectors. In
the unlikely case that the IMU has accumulated too great an integration error, then the control board will begin using
the stripe counter position to compute numerical derivatives (backward difference) for velocity and acceleration. In both
cases, the control board will use the more conservative of the two measurements (farther distance, faster speed). This
might result in premature braking, but will use the best possible data for preventing a crash.

24
3. Sensor List

Table 7 List of pod sensors

Sensor Description Position Protocols

IMU Navigational reference Forward center RS232/UART
Laser Stripe Detectors Navigational reference Front Left/Right Sides Digital 1/0
Thermistor Battery temperature Forward center Analog
Thermistor Control Board Temperature Forward Center Analog
Thermistor Power Distribution Board Temperature Forward center Analog
Accelerometer Vibration 3 Axis Control Board I2C
RTD Tank temperature Tank Aft SPI from MAX31865

Fig. 24 Approximate relative position of sensors in pod.

I. Control
General control of the pod is accomplished with a centralized control board. This board was designed and
programmed as part of the Hyperloop Electronics Core (HEC) by the Hyperdrive Senior Projects Team in service of CU
Hyperloop. The control board is responsible for communication of commands and data. This board is also responsible
for nominal pod operations, braking decisions, and responding to fault conditions. The control board logs sensor data
through the network connection and locally on an SD card. All electromechanical components have drivers located near
the component designed to respond to the control signal sent from control board.

1. Electronic Control Units

The Hyperloop Electronics Core (HEC) contains the two primary electronic controllers, the control board and the
Power Distribution Board (PDB). Both the control board and power distribution board were designed using Altium
Designer, a PCB design tool.

25
 Diagrams.jpg

Fig. 25 Hyperloop Electronics Core (HEC) Functional Block Diagram

Control Board: The control board is based around an STMicro M3 architecture. This chip was chosen based on
the following desired characteristics:
• 32 Bit Architecture
• Single Core
• 120+MHz clock frequency
• 1024+kb (1mb) of on-board flash
• 3+ Channels of SPI
• 2+ Channels of I 2 C
• Need to maximize ADC’s and Digital I/O available
• Need for a direct development or evaluation board
• Mature chip for more complete documentation
There are excess peripherals available on this chip. Nominally, these will be disabled. In future iterations of the
pod, this extra flexibility will allow for expanded development without the need for complete hardware and software
redevelopment. The control board contains the core microcontroller, resistor dividers for ADC’s, the Ethernet module,
an SD card slot for data logging, and a 3-axis IMU for vibration sensing. The first revision of control board has been
designed, built and tested. This board was intentionally built somewhat larger than the final intended footprint as it made
for simpler debugging and will have greater utility for software testing. We have identified an error prone component,
the driver for Ethernet, and are developing procedures to confirm proper assembly for this part. Otherwise, the board
performs as expected. It will be used for software development and sensor evaluation.

26
 Fig. 26 Assembled first revision of control board.

The next revision of the board will have the following adjustments:
• 6-layers instead of 4-layers to support signal integrity
• Locking, vibration resistant, Samtec connectors for connecting to peripherals
• Removal of initial debugging features (jumper-ed power for components, duplicate I/O, ect.)
Power Distribution Board:The PDB is based around an STMicro chip of the same series as the control board but
with an MO ARM architecture. The PDB reads data from the COTS Battery Management System (BMS), transforms
the battery voltage to the bus voltage, receives monitoring telemetry from the endpoint DC-DC converters, and sends
telemetry to the control board. The PDB accepts commands from the control board. The voltage conversion from the
input voltage to the high bus voltage is done using the TI UC1842, a fixed-frequency current mode control with an
external transformer. The design of this converter was based off of the typical application from the data sheet, and
simulations were done in LTSpice for proof of concept.

27
Fig. 27 Power converter from input voltage from sling or batteries to high bus voltage, based around the
UC1842.

Brake Control Unit: The BCU have the same STMicro chip as the PDB. With a high control signal, the braking
system will command a latch to engage the brakes. At this point, braking of the vehicle should instantly be detectable
from the vehicle IMU. The BCU will control multiple parallel sets of brakes

J. Pod Communication
The control board communicates with the radio via a standard Ethernet connection. The board will send telemetry
via UDP packets and receive commands via TCP packets. Additionally, the control board maintains 1 second keep
alive packets with the ground computer to the need to reestablish the connection. The ground computer is running a
python server using a package called gunicorn. This package acts as an intermediary between several API’s, allowing
the server to talk to the pod, the SLS, and the SpaceX computer. This server behavior has been demonstrated with a
nucleo development board for the STMicro chip being used.

1. Software Control States

Embedded software is written as a Finite State Machine (FSM) using embedded C. Software will be interrupt driven
where possible.

28
 Fig. 28 Finite State Machine diagram for operation of the control board.

• Power On: System performs power on self tests, establishes communication with ground system.
• Idle: System collects telemetry at minimum frequency. This is the state that the vehicle will be in during pump
down and SLS arming.
• Ready to Launch: System is armed and may be commanded to launch. System must be commanded into this
mode.
• Launch: System commands rear solenoid open.
• Coast: System collects data at maximum frequency. System monitors for braking conditions, including vehicle
deceleration and distance/velocity criteria.
• Braking: System commands solenoids closed, commands brakes to engage, and enters the next stage.
• Idle: System monitors telemetry at maximum frequency until pod velocity is zero, then switches to minimum
telemetry frequency. System is responsive to commands to disengage passive brakes and to vent remaining
propellant from one or both solenoids.
• Power Off: System is commanded to power off. The control board disables endpoint DC/DC converters, safes
data for power off, and commands PDB to power off.
• Fault: System has encountered a fault. All solenoids are commanded closed, brakes are engaged, and endpoint
DC/DC converters are disabled. The control board is responsive to commands to read telemetry and re-enable
systems if power is available.

2. Braking Algorithm
Braking will occur when the control board sends a high signal to the BCU in its "Coast" state. The control board
will send the command if one of two events has occurred:
• The pod is close enough to the end of the track at its current speed that the brakes should be engaged.
• A critical fault has occurred and the pod needs to be safely stopped.

29
 Fig. 29 Process for determining braking criteria.

The precise algorithm for the braking velocity/position is dependant on the final mass of the pod and empirical data
from the brakes. Therefore, this algorithm is currently being developed in python to allow for quick adjustments to the
model. The ultimate goal of the script is to generate a quadratic equation that models the number of feet needed to
stop. Once the number of feet needed meets a specified threshold, the brakes will be engaged. This threshold will be
determined based on the number of clock cycles required to complete two full measurements and computations and how
far the pod could have moved travelling at top speed during this computation. This means that at worst, our algorithm
may brake early, but it will certainly not brake late. Because of the brake design, the brakes are engaged through a single
latch movement. The brakes will remain engaged unless manually re-armed. Therefore, there is no additional control
software needed to engage the brakes.

K. Aerodynamics

1. Shell Design Description

The aerodynamic shell has the objectives of enclosing the interior of the pod and its components while at the same
time minimizing the coefficient of drag as much as possible. While the track’s internal atmospheric pressure will be
reduced as much as possible, when the pod reaches high speeds, surfaces perpendicular to the velocity vector will still

30
create force on the body. D = pv 2 Ab ∗ Cd This of course represents an inefficient and parasitic force which will reduce
overall achievable top speed. To prevent this, the shell must be designed to reduce the aerodynamic forces which will
improve acceleration and also provide protection by preventing aerodynamic stresses on internal components. Cd and
Ab are the design space variables which are modifiable.
In addition, while the shell reduces drag on the system, it does add mass. In previous competition years many
teams have elected to perform their track run without their aerodynamic shell, because the shell’s mass out-penalized
its aerodynamic benefits. As such, the shell must be designed with a very low mass while still maintaining structural
integrity to survive the extreme loads during high speed travel.
Below are renders of the shell as designed. Its major specifications are a length of 3.65m, a width of .745m, and a
height of .586m. This design employs various tools for aerodynamic efficiency such as following the area rule, and
tapering front to rear which minimizes low pressure ‘dead zones’ behind the pod. In addition, ridges along the length of
the shell add additional ‘hoop stiffness’ and reduce frontal area. Finally, there is some internal structure to the shell
which consists of barrel ribs placed at the front rear and middle of the shell. These were included to improve modal
frequencies and limit deflection during high speed travel.
The coefficient of drag for this system CD is 0.44, the cross sectional area Ab is .3694 m2 , and the peak drag force of
71.442 N is expected.

Fig. 30 Shell Front View

31
 Fig. 31 Shell Side View

2. Design Requirements
The specific requirements placed on the aerodynamic shell subsystem were to design a shell which has a CD of no
more than 0.3 and a mass of less than 30kg. In addition, subsystem compliance requirements included specific ports for
the electrical subsystem sensors, and a simplistic mounting solution which provided quick access to the pod’s internals
without a time intensive disassembly process.

L. Shell Flow Analysis

Fig. 32 Aerodynamic Shell CFD Mesh

One of the main goals of the aerodynamic subsystem was to minimize the aerodynamic forces experienced by the
pod during the run. To determine the magnitudes of these forces, STAR CCM+ CFD was used to simulate flow around
the shell and compute the coefficients of drag and lift. The team wanted to minimize both of these values since lift was
unnecessary and any drag would be an additional adverse force to overcome.

32
CFD Set Up The CFD simulation was set up for the conditions are summarized in Tbl. 8. The simulation was ran with
a K-epsilon turbulence model and a mesh of 2,257,902 cells. The decision to run at sea level pressure and density was
made because achieving convergence at the lowest possible atmospheric setting available is difficult. The coefficients of
lift and drag that were calculated from the model can be applied to the low atmospheric setting in order to approximate
what aerodynamic forces the pod will encounter.

Force Coefficients The simulation showed that the coefficient of lift and drag are -0.0045 and 0.44 respectively. At
the anticipated speed of 180 meters per second and 1% atmospheric conditions, the lift and drag developed will be -2.29
Newtons and 71.4 Newtons. Low amount of lift production is desired so that the levitation system does not have to
overcome much additional force to successfully levitate the pod. The drag is a relatively small force compared to the
expected propulsion forces. This value is acceptable for the team despite the coefficient of drag being great than the
initial requirement.

Table 8 CFD Initial Conditions

Variable Value
Pressure 101.325 kPa
Density 1.225 mkg3
Temperature 300 K
Flow Velocity 180 ms

Pressure Distributions Figure 33 shows a 2D cut away of the total pressure on and around the shell during the run.
The total pressure is the difference in air pressure compared to the ambient value of 101,325 Pascals. It important to note
that these pressure values represent a run at sea level pressure and that the actual run will be done at 1% of that pressure.
This was necessary because at such low atmospheric densities, the continuum hypothesis is less accurate and causes
high error rates which prevent convergence of the simulation. Conference with industry/research experts confirmed that
running at a higher atmospheric pressure and scaling is an acceptable workaround. Therefore, the pressure values on the
graphic can be scaled down to 1% of the shown values. This scaled pressure distribution was input into ANSYS to
model the structural effects aerodynamic forces at top speed. Figure 34 shows the 3D pressure distribution on the shell
surface for reference as well.

Fig. 33 Aerodynamic Shell 2D Pressure Results

33
 Fig. 34 Aerodynamic Shell 3D Pressure Results

Velocity Distributions Figures 35 and 36 show the velocity magnitude around the shell as a contour plot and
streamline plot respectively. Once again, these values are shown at sea level air pressure and density conditions. At 1%
atmosphere, the values will change. An important factor for the team was avoiding the development of a shockwave. If
a shockwave forms, it introduces another form of drag to account for in the form of wave drag. The analysis is simpler
when wave drag can be avoided and based on the velocity figures, no shock wave is formed. There is no where on the
shell where the velocity meets or exceeds Mach 1. Therefore, the team did not have to focus on any contributions due to
wave drag.

Fig. 35 Aerodynamic Shell 2D Velocity Results

34
 Fig. 36 Aerodynamic Shell Streamline Results

Shell Thermal Profile Of additional concern was the thermal profile of the pod during the run. It is important to
understand how the temperature of the shell will vary during the run to avoid any structural complications due to thermal
expansion or contraction. Figure 37 shows the anticipated thermal distribution along the surface of the shell at our
estimated top speed. The lowest temperature is 306.66 K while the highest temperature is 317.49 K making the highest
temperature variance 10 K. This variation is small enough that we are not concerned with the thermal effects on the
shell. Figure 38 shows the temperature on the shell and the surrounding air. While the surrounding air has a temperature
variance of 46 K, the performance of the shell should be unaffected.

Fig. 37 Aerodynamic 3D Temperature Results

35
 Fig. 38 Aerodynamic 2D Temperature Results

1. Shell Structural and Performance Analysis

Five different types of structural analysis were done on the shell: 4 static, 1 modal, and 1 harmonic response. The 4
static cases corresponded to the pod accelerating, at maximum velocity, braking, and a crash test. The modal analysis
was run using the pre-stressed values from the maximum velocity static case to find the first 6 modes. The harmonic
analysis was run for the mode that was closest to our expected vibrational load due to imperfections in the track. For
each case, the total deformation and equivalent stress was plotted over the shell to visualize the deformations and
quantitatively compare the stress against the maximum allowable stress for the carbon fiber. The one exception being
the modal analysis only looked at total deformation to understand the mode shape. Deformation values from modal
analysis are not accurate. To understand how the shell deforms under a vibrational load harmonic analysis must be done.

Fig. 39 Shell Acceleration Deformation

36
 Fig. 40 Shell Acceleration Stress

Shell Acceleration Figures 39 and 40 show the deformation and stress results respectively. In order to simulate the
acceleration phase of the run, the interial force of the shell was calculated by multiplying the expected acceleration by
the mass of the shell. This force was then applied to the center of mass of the shell for the simulation. For the results, it
is necessary to note that ANSYS exaggerates the deformation magnitude in the visual representation so the user can
easily see where most of the deformation was occurring. In reality, the maximum deformation during the acceleration
phase is only 0.72 millimeters and the maximum equivalent stress is 29.33 MPa. This stress is far less than the ultimate
stress of 513 MPa and gives a safety factor of over 17. Based on these results the shell should have no static structural
problems during the acceleration phase of the run.

Shell Maximum Velocity The maximum velocity case was simulated by applying adjusted pressure distributions from
the CFD analysis (see Fig. 34) to the pod. Pressure adjustment involved taking pressure values down to 5% of what they
were calculated to be in the CFD simulation. Ideally, the run will be done at 1% atmospheric conditions, but due to the
difficulties of maintaining these conditions, the simulation was run at slightly higher atmospheric conditions to account
for any variances the pod encounters along the track. Figures 41 and 42 show the ANSYS results for this simulation.
The maximum deformation is 3 mm and the equivalent stress is 52.7 MPa. While the deformation was greater than in
the acceleration case, the maximum equivalent stress is less than the ultimate stress of 513 MPa. Quantitatively, there is
still a safety factor of 9.7 in the stress of the shell’s carbon fiber when the pod reaches maximum velocity.

Fig. 41 Shell Maximum Velocity Deformation

37
 Fig. 42 Shell Maximum Velocity Stress

Shell Braking The braking analysis for the shell was done in a similar fashion to the acceleration of pod. The expected
braking acceleration was multiplied by the mass of the shell to obtain the inertial force and then that force was applied
to the center of mass of the shell. Figures 43 and 44 show the deformation and braking stress experienced by the shell.
The braking case is the least structurally intensive phase for the shell. The maximum deformation and equivalent stress
experienced by the shell in this phase are 0.127 mm and 5.21 MPa. The deformation is very small and the maximum
equivalent stress gives a safety factor against ultimate stress of over 100.

Fig. 43 Shell Braking Deformation

38
 Fig. 44 Shell Braking Stress

Shell Modal Analysis Modal analysis reveal three different natural frequencies within the range of what is expected
from imperfections in the track. As the pod speeds up, the frequency will sweep up to 47 Hz and back down as it
decelerates. Modal analysis revealed three natural frequencies of concern: 33.147 Hz, 40.978 Hz, and 47.791 Hz. Their
shapes are shown in Figs. 45-47. All of three of these mode shapes will be limited by the frame of the pod so the actual
deformations will not be so large. However, to determine the deformations, it is necessary to move to the harmonic
response analysis for each mode.

Fig. 45 Shell Mode 1 Shape

39
 Fig. 46 Shell Mode 2 Shape

Fig. 47 Shell Mode 3 Shape

Shell Harmonic Response The harmonic response to the mode shapes achieved in the modal analysis allows the
quantitative analysis of the modal frequencies effects on the shell. Figures 48-53 show the harmonic responses to the
natural frequencies we expect to sweep through accelerating and decelerating. The first mode is concerning because
the equivalent stress exceeds the ultimate stress significantly. The team is in the process of evaluating how serious of
an issue this is because the stress only reaches this value on a small piece of the shell and for small amount of time
(less than one second). Additionally, the model does not include any damping provided by the frame of the pod itself.
Possibilities include adding more sturdy supports to the sections that are experiencing high stresses or thickening the
nose section of the shell. Any improvements made to handle mode 1 will help with modes 2 and 3 as well, by shifting
all modes up and hopefully out of the range of expected vibrations from the track. For now, the team will fix the issues
surrounding mode 1 and then evaluate where mode 2 and 3 stand. That said, modes 2 and 3 occur along the body which
should receive a fair amount of damping from the frame of the pod itself.

40
Fig. 48 Shell Mode 1 Harmonic Deformation

Fig. 49 Shell Mode 1 Harmonic Stress

41
Fig. 50 Shell Mode 2 Harmonic Deformation

Fig. 51 Shell Mode 2 Harmonic Stress

Fig. 52 Shell Mode 3 Harmonic Deformation

42
 Fig. 53 Shell Mode 3 Harmonic Stress

Shell Crash Scenario The final structural analysis performed was the on the shell should the pod separate from the
track and impact the side of the wall along the side of the nose section. For this analysis a force equal to 4 times that of
the acceleration force was applied to only the left side of the nose. The ANSYS results for this situation are shown in
Figs. 54 and 55. The maximum stress is over 12,000 MPa and such a crash would lead to a catastrophic structural
failure in the shell.

Fig. 54 Shell Crash Scenario Deformation

43
 Fig. 55 Shell Crash Scenario Stress

2. Shell Design Interfaces

Mounting Interface Description and Analysis The mounting for the solution must allow the team to quickly install
or remove the shell for maintenance and to promote an overall efficient work flow. The shell is mounted to the top rails
of the frame via ‘L-brackets’ which run the length of the shell. The shell is ‘slid’ on from the front of the pod to the rear.
The L-brackets provide a place for the shell to sit on, and several bolts are then installed from the outside to hold it in
place. A figure below illustrates the L-bracket and interface with the frame.

Fig. 56 Demonstrative Diagram of Shell to Frame Bolt-Slide L-Bracket Interface

To determine the diameter of the bolts needed and the necessary L-beam thickness, a shear analysis was done
by accounting for the total force of drag on the shell. The team chose to use 6 bolts total (3 on each side) to ensure
redundancy in the securing interface while still allowing easy accessibility to interior components on the pod. From the
CFD results, the drag on the shell is 77.4 newtons. This force was divided by 6 under the assumption that the force will
be evenly distributed across the 6 bolts. Equations below show the formula that was used to determine the minimum

44
bolt diameter with a safety factor of two. For the L-beam, the shear reference area was determined to be the L-beam
thickness by the bolt diameter. Using the bolt diameter and drag force, the minimum L-beam thickness was found with
a safety factor of 2. Note that the actual number of bolts will provide a FOS which is substantially larger, as the true bolt
diameter and L-beam will be much larger than the calculated minimum. M4 bolts will be used on an L-beam of at least
3 mm thickness.
s
4 ∗ Drag f or ce
Dbolt = = 0.162mm (6)
3 ∗ /pi ∗ /taumax
Drag f or ce
Lthickness = = 0.233mm (7)
3 ∗ /pi ∗ Dbolt ∗ /taumax

Shell Internal Structure Description Upon structural analysis through ANSYS, some internal ribbing was found to
be necessary in order to prevent large deflections in the shell. Three support ribs were spaced equally along the body of
the shell and two support ribs were place in the nose of the shell to support the shell better. The ribs will be made out of
carbon fiber making use of the mold that was used to make the shell to ensure a good structural fit.

3. Shell Manufacturing Plan

The CU Hyperloop team has extensive experience in manufacturing carbon fiber products. Team workshops have
been conducted with industry experts, including hands-on workshops where each member was able to build a custom
self-designed hyperloop aerodynamic shell. In addition, experience in small parts manufacturing, CNC usage, and
structural members (I-beams, C-beams, etc.) have been built for demonstration purposes. The team has procured
the necessary 2x2 twill weave 12k standard modulus carbon fiber, and has access to aerospace grade resin from a
composite manufacturing donor. In addition, vacuum bagging materials and pumps were procured for the team’s in
house manufacturing. The manufacturing plan is a scaled up version of the procedure CU Hyperloop has followed
for many of its carbon fiber builds. A mandrill will be created using foam blocks and wood/carpentry based products,
access to a large CNC machine will assist in modeling organic or complex curves. The mandrill will be coated in
non-stick material which ‘breathes’ to allow excess resin filtration. The carbon fiber fabric will be pre-cut according
to in-house designed stencils, wetted with resin before, and then wetted while it is applied to the mandrill. At each
layer junction, edge and corner inspections are performed by many members for expediency, and then the next layer is
added. The process is time consuming and must be completed before congealing of the resin, so all layers are pre-cut
and pre-fitted, and several participants are always on hand for assistance. When the last fiber layer is placed, it is then
covered in the same non-stick and breathing materials as the mandrill. The custom oversized vacuum bag is then sealed
around the system and air pumped out for curing. Elevated heat is applied if possible, and a cure time of 24-72 hours is
observed before post build inspection and completion of the build.

M. Levitation

1. Levitation Subsystem Design Description

This levitation system features permanent magnets arranged in linear Halbach arrays. Such an orientation greatly
strengthens the magnetic field on one side, in this case, the side which faces the track, while nearly canceling out the
field facing the pod. Lift can then be achieved by imposing the stronger field onto the conductive aluminum base plate;
this simultaneously negates magnetic interference with the electronics in the pod. Levitation is achieved when eddy
currents are induced in the aluminum track as the pod moves with increasing velocity down the I-beam. The flowing
current generates its own opposite magnetic field, thus repelling the array and lifting the pod. Due to the Lorentz Force,
or eddy current damping, drag is also present. The depth at which the magnetic field ‘penetrates’ the base plate has a
large effect on the magnitudes of lift and drag; the depth of penetration is determined by the height of the pod and the
speed of motion. Because of this, lift force increases and becomes asymptotic as speed increases. The other force - drag
- peaks, then decreases with increasing speed. A general plot of these effects is demonstrated below.

45
 Fig. 57 Functional model results of a single levitation ski

The use of a Halbach array minimizes the mass required for levitation by magnifying the magnetic field facing the
track, generating more lift with fewer magnets as compared to alternating arrays. See Fig. 58. This arrangement also
simplifies operation and reduces mass by negating the need for electronic parts traditionally found on other suspension
systems. The result is an entirely passive system which can produce lift at low to high speeds while requiring no power
inputs or control systems.

Fig. 58 Magnetic field diagram of a Halbach Array functionality

46
 The design solution is as follows: Using four Halbach arrays composed of five quantity 4”x1”x1” N42 neodymium
magnets, the 366 kg fully fueled pod can be levitated by the target velocity of 5 m/s. Each array is housed in a ski and
affixed to the frame. Below are renders of one ski, their material being custom fabricated in-house using carbon fiber.
Four skis will be used in total with one mounted to each of the pod’s corners.

Fig. 59 Render of a single levitation ski holding a 5 magnet linear Halbach array

Fig. 60 Render of full pod showing two skis, one in each corner. Note: Mirrored on other side.

Note that the skis are independent systems which can be easily removed. This allows a simple and robust mounting
interface, while also allowing for easy removal so that the hazardous magnets can be stored safely while working on the

47
pod.

2. Design Requirements
The levitation subsystem’s design requirements are as follows:
- Achieve levitation for at least 375 kg mass by 5 m/s
- Provide levitation for the entirety of the intended velocity profile, max 180 m/s
- Entire system to be as light as possible, no more than 40 kg
- Safely and robustly house and mount arrays without the use of ferrous materials

To satisfy the requirements, the levitation system needs to generate a total of 2943 N of force at a speed of no more
than 5 m/s. Using four separate halbach arrays, a single array needs to generate 735.75 N. As materials such as iron
or steel may cause unwanted magnetic interference with our arrays, the arrays will be held in a rectangular carbon
fiber ski with one end “open”, featuring an L bracket slide and a cotter pin to close off the open end, allowing easy
magnet insertion. In this design, a single magnet and ski weighs 0.492 kg and 0.3 kg respectively. With a total of twenty
magnets and four skis, our entire system weighs 11.04 kg, well under the 40 kg limit.

3. Levitation Analysis and Modeling

Through the use of MATLAB, it is possible to calculate the maximum drag acting against the pod with respect to
velocity of a single array; this occurs at 3.28 m/s with a force of 674.74 N. Target lifting force is achieved at 3.42 m/s
when the bottom of the arrays are 1 cm above the track. The specifications of the magnets chosen are shown below, in
addition to the equations which were used. It is important to note that the aluminum track is assumed to be infinite in
length and width and uniform in thickness and density.

Fig. 61 Levitation model governing equations

The above force model was implemented in a standalone program to provide quick access to analytic results for
array sizing and design performance predictions. In addition, this model was implemented into a variable timestep
numerical integrator. This integrator software calculates the vehicles state as a function of velocity including things like
magnetic force, vertical height, and drag.

4. Levitation Subsystem Modeling Results

The following magnet specifications were selected after analysis, they are a COTS solution which is readily available.

48
 Fig. 62 Magnet Specifications Chosen

As there was difficulty determining the residual flux density (Br) at the surface of a magnet, existing charts were
utilized which listed the data with respect to the dimensions and type of magnet, resulting in a limited range of magnets
to choose from. N42 magnets have a lower magnetic field strength than N52 types; however, safety concerns in the
feasibility of manufacturing this system outweighed the gain in magnetic field strength. In order to make use of the
N42 magnets most effectively, it was decided to find a magnet rectangular in shape with magnetization pole direction
through the larger area sides. This improves the output field strength, particularly once enhanced by the Halbach effect.
Therefore, simulations were done for a 2” x 1” x 1” N42 magnet with surface flux density of 0.5248 T and a 4” x 1” x 1”
N42 magnet with surface flux density of 0.4871 T.

Fig. 63 2” x 1” x 1” force simulation at 2cm height.

49
 Fig. 64 4” x 1” x 1” force simulation at 2cm height.

The model showed that when testing 2 cm from the ground, neither array produced the force necessary for levitation.
However, the 2” x 1” x 1” magnet produces roughly one third less force at 5 m/s than the 4” x 1” x 1” magnet - despite
having a greater flux density. Furthermore, the 2” x 1” x 1” fails to meet the velocity requirement even after lowering
the gap height from 2 cm to 1 cm to 0.5 cm, only generating 253 N and 545 N of force respectively as seen below. The
other option - the 4” x 1” x 1” magnet - meets all requirements when tested with a 1 cm gap height.

50
 Fig. 65 4” x 1” x 1” force simulation at 1cm height.

At this juncture, the model was incorporated into a numerical integrator and used to produce plots of vertical
position over time. As can be seen below, the pod achieves a stable levitation height quickly once it begins motion. This
helps define another external source pf vibration on the pod. In this case, the frequency is just over 3 Hz.

Fig. 66 Levitation height over time with respect to velocity

51
 Fig. 67 The velocity over time plot which corresponds to the above levitation height prediction

With an initial height of 1 cm, the pod is capable of levitation at a steady average of 2cm. This height is adjustable
to a point by tilting the skis or increasing their starting height. The oscillations present in this system are concerning
but not realistic, no damping effects are modeled and so the oscillations are represented more drastically than actually
expected. In addition, the mechanical subsystem fixture mechanism will prevent over or under levitation conditions as
well as provide damping to prevent unstable decay.

5. Levitation Modeling Next Steps

In the future, a higher fidelity magnetic model will be created using HFSS in ANSYS. This will give us a much
greater idea of how our magnets will interact with the aluminum subtrack as well as pod electronics.

6. Levitation Testing
Proof of concept was demonstrated with a small scale test. In this test, a 5” long cart consisting of two parallel
Halbach arrays was accelerated down an eight foot long aluminum test track. By the second test iteration, the system
displayed reliable and consistent levitation up to 1 inch in height while traveling as slowly as 0.787 m/s. The payload for
this setup was not substantial mass, but it does serve as an accurate and representative low speed demonstration. In
addition, the characterized forces expected agreed reasonably well with the analytical models developed, this improved
fidelity and design confidence as a whole.

Fig. 68 Images captured from a scale levitation test, time increases left to right.

52
 Also below is a graph of data which was captured using self-designed computer vision software. The data points are
recorded frame by frame using reverse stereoscopy and then plotted as a function of time. The following plot of height
over speed was generated by averaging several levitation run’s data sets.

Fig. 69 Height over speed obtained from captured footage of tests.

Further testing will be done using this test track to gather more empirical data to support the matlab simulations.
Data gathering includes: velocity at levitation, levitation performance between two plates of aluminum, and height at
levitation.

7. Levitation Design Interface Description

Analysis was performed on the expected shear force for the bolt to shell interface. It was found that with a peak
acceleration of 250m/s2 a force of 10,000N in shear must be resisted. This resulted in a required minimum shear
resistance area of 3.3cm2 . In design, we will use quantity (8) 1/4-20 bolts, providing a substantial factor of safety.

8. Levitation Subsystem Mass and Cost Budgets

The following tables serve as a parts list, mass budget, and cost budget. They were derived from the aformentioned
analysis as well as material property analysis using high fidelity CAD models.

53
 Fig. 70 Levitation Subsystem Mass and Cost Budgets

N. Structural Analysis on the Frame as a Whole

Structural analysis for acceleration, braking, and crash load cases was conducted, as was an analysis on the vibration
modes of the structure along with the response of the structure when experiencing these vibration frequencies. Due to
the complexity of the model and the variation of thicknesses within different parts, a fairly granular mesh of base size 20
mm had to be used in order for analysis to complete on the hardware we had available to us. The team is looking to gain
access to the University’s High Power Computing Lab to perform a full system analysis with a finer mesh.
Details are below, but the factor of safety during acceleration and braking were 2.24 and 3.15, respectively. In the
vibration analysis, the minimum factor of safety was found to be 3.77.

1. Analysis during Acceleration

During acceleration, the frame is subject to the inertial load of the entire pod. This was modeled by applying a
uniform force of 82.575 kN to all parts of the model. The inside plates of the fixture mechanism were fixed to simulate
the fixture mechanism keeping the pod aligned with the center rail of the track. This led to a maximum deformation of 5
mm in the top of the frame structural flanges. The maximum stress occurred in one of the tank support structures and
was 123.2 MPa. As this part is made of Aluminum (Al 6061-T6/T651), this represents a factor of safety of 2.24. Figures
(71) and (72) detail the results of the acceleration case.

54
 Fig. 71 Deformation results from the acceleration load case of the analysis on the frame

Fig. 72 Stress results from the acceleration load case of the analysis on the frame

2. Analysis during Braking

Braking loads were similar to the acceleration case but a a different magnitude. This time, the applied force was
58.725 kN. All other model conditions remained the same. Figures (73) and (74) show the results, which were a 4 mm
deformation in the same spot and a max stress of 87.6 MPa, which leads to a factor of safety of 3.15.

55
 Fig. 73 Deformation results from the braking load case of the analysis on the frame

Fig. 74 Stress results from the braking load case of the analysis on the frame

3. Analysis in the Event of a Crash

The crash case modeled a front end collision by applying a 10.44 MN force to the front surfaces of the frame,
resulting in a catastrophic failure of the material which deflects 1.85 m and experiences a peak stress of 31 GPa in the
carbon fiber panels sandwiching the frame. Figures (75) and (76) show the results. However, since 10 GPa is well past
the yield strength of any pod materials, the deformation results are not necessarily accurate as the material is well into
the plastic regime.

56
 Fig. 75 Deformation results from the crash load case of the analysis on the frame

Fig. 76 Stress results from the crash load case of the analysis on the frame

4. Anticipated Vibration Response

The modal analysis was perhaps the most interesting to run. The first 10 modes fall within the anticipated excitation
range that we will experience during our full speed test run. This comes from the inconsistencies in adjacent track
sections. With a top speed of 180 m/s, we expect to see a maximum external vibration of 47 Hz as outlined in Eq. (8).
mÛ m
179 3.81 = 46.98Hz (8)
s step
Harmonic response analysis was performed by applying a 100 N force to the base of the pod frame flanges across a
swept frequency from 10 Hz to 55 Hz. The frequencies which experienced the highest deformation and stress were
plotted, seen in Figures (77) and (78), which were 2.2 mm and 136 MPa, respectively. This peak stress was experienced
in one of the carbon fiber panels, so the factor of safety for modal analysis stresses is 3.77. Additionally, Fig. (79) gives
a better idea of the mode shape associated with this peak stress, which occurs at 44 Hz.

57
Fig. 77 Deformation results from a swept harmonic response analysis

Fig. 78 Stress results from a swept harmonic response analysis

58
 Fig. 79 Mode shape at 44 Hz when the peak stress occurs

5. Actions Taken as a Result of the Analysis

Prior to running the above analysis, the frame was analyzed without the forward cross-member connecting the front
flanges of the frame. This caused lower ( 5 Hz less than current) and more violent (over the yield stress of our materials)
vibration modes. Because of this, the team added the structural member and supported the frame as a direct result of the
analysis. This allowed for precise placement of the structural support and represented a specific, targeted design change
from intermediate results.

O. Structural Analysis of Pod Features and Mechanisms

ANSYS was used to perform structural and modal analysis on major pod components. Table (9) lists the minimum
factors of safety for each component modeled (not including crash results). Detailed results of each part are described in
the following sections.

Table 9 Minimum Factors of Safety for analyzed parts

Part FOS
Thrust Plate 2.19
Thrust Nozzle 1.97
Brakes 65.8
Fixture Mechanism, Z-Bar 376
Fixture Mechanism, Axle Mount 3000+
Fixture Mechanism, Spring Mount 58
Horizontal Fixture Mechanism Assembly Mount 649
Vertical Fixture Mechanism Assembly Mount 260
Ski Wheel Mechanism, Z-Bar 3.57
Maglev Ski 82.74

1. Thrust Plate
The thrust plate is what acts at the mounting interface between all of the propulsion plumbing systems and the
nozzle. Due to the high loads from the thrust of the vehicle, this part is made from 0.75 inch Titanium (Ti-6Al-4V,

59
Grade 5). Since this is a large contributor to the overall weight of the pod, we are investigating other material and
geometry options for this part to better absorb stress while still remaining lightweight.

Analysis during Acceleration During acceleration, the thrust plate is under up to 100 kN of force from the propulsion
system. Additionally, inertial forces are also modeled on the whole part using the peak acceleration value of the pod.
Figure (80) and (81). This resulted in a maximum deflection of 1.2 mm and a peak stress of 442.9 MPa. This gives a
factor of safety of 2.19 for the acceleration case.

Fig. 80 Deformation results from the acceleration load case of the analysis on the thrust plate

Fig. 81 Stress results from the acceleration load case of the analysis on the thrust plate

Analysis during Braking When braking, the propulsion valves are closed so the only forces acting on the thrust plate
are inertial forces. Figure (82) and (83). This resulted in a negligible deflection and a peak stress of 264 kPa. This gives
a factor of safety of over 3000 for the braking case.

60
 Fig. 82 Deformation results from the braking load case of the analysis on the thrust plate

Fig. 83 Stress results from the braking load case of the analysis on the thrust plate

Analysis in the Event of a Crash The crash case applied the full tank pressure to the throat and rear face of the
thrust plate to model a tank explosion. Figure (84) and (85) show the results. This resulted in a maximum deflection
of 9.6 mm and a peak stress of 5.31 GPa, which causes a material failure. Since this result is obviously in the plastic
deformation regime, the deformation results may not be as reliable.

Fig. 84 Deformation results from the crash load case of the analysis on the thrust plate

61
 Fig. 85 Stress results from the crash load case of the analysis on the thrust plate

Anticipated Vibration Response Model analysis led to the first vibration mode being discovered at 759 Hz. This is
well outside the range of anticipated external vibration of our pod, but to be thorough, a 1 kN force was applied to the
base of the thrust plate harmonically near at that frequency. The results can be seen in Fig. (86), where a negligible
deformation was experienced.

Fig. 86 The first vibration mode, 759 Hz

2. Actions Taken as a Result of the Analysis

Prior to running the above analysis, the thrust plate was simply a flat plate of Aluminum. Upon application of the
thrust load however, it was obvious that this structure would not be able to handle the required 100 kN of force from
our propulsion system. Next, the team tried to use the I-beam structure as shown in this analysis with Aluminum, but
found that the aluminum beam would have to be over 1 inch thick to support the load, representing serious mass and
manufacturing pitfalls. Finally, the team decided to optimize the I-beam geometry for Grade 5 Titanium, resulting in a
much easier to procure titanium I-beam of relatively low mass (only about 50% grater than the original Aluminum plate).

3. Thrust Nozzle
The nozzle is used to ideally expand the flow from the propulsion tank to the atmosphere within the tube. Further
analysis on the geometry of the nozzle is in Section IV.G.3, but structural analysis follows. The nozzle is made of carbon
fiber.

Analysis during Acceleration During acceleration, the nozzle is subject to inertial forces and the forces from the
expanding gas of the propulsion system. Figure (87) and (88) show the results of the acceleration load case. This

62
resulted in a maximum deflection of 0.38 mm and an actual max stress of about 260 MPa. We believe the reported
peak stress from ANSYS of 533.7 MPa is erroneous and due to the support reactions. The reason being that the peak
stress is reported on the edge of the mounting flange, and only along a ring of a single node. We would expect the
maximum stress to be in the throat where the pressure is greatest. Going on the assumption that the rest of the stress and
deformation values are accurate, this gives a factor of safety of 1.97 for the acceleration case.

Fig. 87 Deformation results from the acceleration load case of the analysis on the nozzle

Fig. 88 Stress results from the acceleration load case of the analysis on the nozzle

Analysis during Braking When braking, the propulsion valves are closed so the only forces acting on the nozzle are
inertial forces. Figure (89) and (90). This resulted in a negligible deflection (less than 10−5 m) and a peak stress of
146.7 kPa. It should be noted that this peak stress does once again occur on the flange where support reactions within
ANSYS may be skewing the actual result. This gives a factor of safety of nearly 3500 for the braking case.

63
 Fig. 89 Deformation results from the braking load case of the analysis on the nozzle

Fig. 90 Stress results from the braking load case of the analysis on the nozzle

Analysis in the Event of a Crash The crash case applied the full tank pressure to the throat and rear face of the
thrust plate to model a tank explosion. Figure (91) and (92) show the results. This resulted in a maximum deformation
of 1.9 mm and a peak stress of 3.0 GPa, which causes a material failure. Since this result is obviously in the plastic
deformation regime, the deformation results may not be as reliable. Additionally, in the case of this failure mode, the
supports applied to the nozzle (where it mounts to the thrust plate) would not be valid as the thrust plate would also fail.

Fig. 91 Deformation results from the crash load case of the analysis on the nozzle

64
 Fig. 92 Stress results from the crash load case of the analysis on the nozzle

Anticipated Vibration Response Model analysis led to the first vibration mode being discovered at 615 Hz. This is
well outside the range of anticipated external vibration of our pod, so additional harmonic response analysis was not
performed.

Next Step: Thermal Analysis Due to the cold temperature that the expanding gas will cause, the next set of analysis
to be run on the nozzle is a thermal analysis to help understand what a reduction in temperature will cause the materials
and structure to do.

4. Brakes
Five sets of brakes are located on the undercarriage of the pod and work by clamping on the web of the rail. Further
analysis on the design of the brakes are in Section 8, but structural analysis on one brake assembly follows (They
are symmetric about the center plane of the web of the rail so the left and right assemblies will experience the same
magnitude of stress and deformation). The structurally important parts of the brake assembly are made of aluminum.

Analysis during Acceleration During acceleration, the brake assembly is subject to inertial forces only. Figure (93)
and (94) show the results of the acceleration load case. This resulted in a negligible maximum deflection and an actual
maximum stress of about 1.37 MPa. This gives a factor of safety of 202 for the acceleration case.

Analysis during Braking When braking, the forces acting on the brake assembly are inertial forces and the force of
friction from clamping to the rail. This frictional force is 167.09 N and is applied in the direction opposite of motion.
Figure (95) and (96) show the results of the braking force case. This resulted in a negligible deflection and a peak stress
of 420 kPa. This gives a factor of safety of nearly 65.8 for the braking case.

Analysis in the Event of a Crash The crash case applies a high force to the front of the brake assembly in the
direction opposing travel to simulate a head on collision. Figure (97) and (98) show the results. This resulted in a
negligible deformation which may be interpreted as erroneous as the force was applied on a very thin face and a peak
stress of 339 MPa, which causes a material failure. This would be a catastrophic failure, as the brakes would not be
properly supported; however, this much force will only be imparted in the case of a collision already occurring.

Anticipated Vibration Response Model analysis led to the first vibration mode being discovered at 3523 Hz. Due to
the high vibration mode of this part, additional harmonic response analysis was not conducted.

65
Fig. 93 Deformation results from the acceleration load case of the analysis on the brake assembly

Fig. 94 Stress results from the acceleration load case of the analysis on the brake assembly

66
Fig. 95 Deformation results from the braking load case of the analysis on the brake assembly

Fig. 96 Stress results from the braking load case of the analysis on the brake assembly

Fig. 97 Deformation results from the crash load case of the analysis on the brake assembly

67
 Fig. 98 Stress results from the crash load case of the analysis on the brake assembly

5. Horizontal Fixture Mechanism, Z-Bar

The z-bar of the horizontal fixture mechanism is what holds the fixture assembly together and is made of Aluminum
(AL 6061 T6/T651). It links the wheels, the axle, and the spring suspension into a single system. The horizontal
designation means that these assemblies are mounted horizontally and prevent lateral movement of the pod along the
track.

Analysis during Acceleration During acceleration, the z-bar is subject to inertial forces. Figure (99) and (100). This
resulted in negligible deformation and a peak stress of 315 kPa. This gives a factor of safety of 376 for the acceleration
case.

Fig. 99 Deformation results from the acceleration load case of the analysis on the horizontal fixture mechanism,
z-bar

68
Fig. 100 Stress results from the acceleration load case of the analysis on the horizontal fixture mechanism,
z-bar

Analysis during Braking When braking, the only forces acting on the z-bar once again are inertial forces. Figure
(101) and (102). This also results in a negligible deflection and a peak stress of only 56 kPa. This gives a factor of
safety of nearly 5000 for the braking case.

Fig. 101 Deformation results from the braking load case of the analysis on the horizontal fixture mechanism,
z-bar

Fig. 102 Stress results from the braking load case of the analysis on the horizontal fixture mechanism, z-bar

69
Analysis in the Event of a Crash The crash case applied 4 times the regular load to the z-bar. Figure (103) and (104)
show the results. This still results in a negligible deformation and a peak stress of 1.5 MPa.

Fig. 103 Deformation results from the crash load case of the analysis on the horizontal fixture mechanism,
z-bar

Fig. 104 Stress results from the crash load case of the analysis on the horizontal fixture mechanism, z-bar

Anticipated Vibration Response Model analysis led to the first vibration mode being discovered at 727.7 Hz. This
is well outside the range of anticipated external vibration of our pod, but to be thorough, a 1 kN force was applied to
the base of the model harmonically near at that frequency. The results can be seen in Fig. (105), where a negligible
deformation was experienced.

70
 Fig. 105 The first vibration mode of the horizontal fixture mechanism, z-bar, 727.7 Hz

6. Horizontal Fixture Mechanism, Axle Mount

The axle mount of the horizontal fixture mechanism holds the central rotation axle and is made of Aluminum (AL
6061 T6/T651).

Analysis during Acceleration During acceleration, the axle mount is subject to inertial forces. Figure (106) and
(107). This resulted in negligible deformation and a peak stress of 82.4 kPa. This gives a factor of safety of over 3000
for the acceleration case.

Fig. 106 Deformation results from the acceleration load case of the analysis on the horizontal fixture mechanism,
axle mount

71
Fig. 107 Stress results from the acceleration load case of the analysis on the horizontal fixture mechanism, axle
mount

Analysis during Braking When braking, the only forces acting on the axle mount once again are inertial forces.
Figure (108) and (109). This also results in a negligible deflection and a peak stress of only 14.6 kPa. This gives a factor
of safety of nearly 19000 for the braking case.

Fig. 108 Deformation results from the braking load case of the analysis on the horizontal fixture mechanism,
axle mount

72
Fig. 109 Stress results from the braking load case of the analysis on the horizontal fixture mechanism, axle
mount

Analysis in the Event of a Crash The crash case applied 4 times the regular load to the axle mount. Figure (110)
and (111) show the results. This still results in a negligible deformation and a peak stress of 41.2 kPa.

Fig. 110 Deformation results from the crash load case of the analysis on the horizontal fixture mechanism, axle
mount

Fig. 111 Stress results from the crash load case of the analysis on the horizontal fixture mechanism, axle mount

73
Anticipated Vibration Response Model analysis led to the first vibration mode being discovered at 9004 Hz. Due to
the high vibration mode of this part, additional harmonic response analysis was not conducted.

7. Horizontal Fixture Mechanism, Spring Mount

The spring mount of the horizontal fixture mechanism serves as the hard-point for the spring suspension used in the
fixture mechanism. It mounts to the frame of the pod and is made of Aluminum (AL 6061 T6/T651).

Analysis during Acceleration During acceleration, the spring mount is subject to inertial forces. Additionally, the
full force of the spring tension (109 lbs, or 484 N) was applied to the center axle of the spring. While this load isn’t
expected to be on the part during the entirety of the run, it was constantly applied as a worst case. Figure (112) and
(113). This resulted in negligible deformation and a peak stress of 4.68 MPa. This gives a factor of safety of over 59 for
the acceleration case.

Fig. 112 Deformation results from the acceleration load case of the analysis on the horizontal fixture mechanism,
spring mount

Fig. 113 Stress results from the acceleration load case of the analysis on the horizontal fixture mechanism,
spring mount

Analysis during Braking When braking, the only forces acting on the spring mount once again are inertial forces
and the spring tension force. Figure (114) and (115). This also results in a negligible deflection and a peak stress of only
4.72 MPa. This gives a factor of safety of 58 for the braking case.

74
Fig. 114 Deformation results from the braking load case of the analysis on the horizontal fixture mechanism,
spring mount

Fig. 115 Stress results from the braking load case of the analysis on the horizontal fixture mechanism, spring
mount

Analysis in the Event of a Crash The crash case applied 4 times the regular load to the spring mount. Figure (116)
and (117) show the results. This still results in a negligible deformation and a peak stress of 17.4 MPa.

Fig. 116 Deformation results from the crash load case of the analysis on the horizontal fixture mechanism,
spring mount

75
Fig. 117 Stress results from the crash load case of the analysis on the horizontal fixture mechanism, spring
mount

Anticipated Vibration Response Model analysis led to the first vibration mode being discovered at 4271 Hz. Due to
the high vibration mode of this part, additional harmonic response analysis was not conducted.

8. Horizontal Fixture Mechanism Assembly Mount

The assembly mount of the horizontal fixture mechanism serves as the mounting point for the entire horizontal
fixture assembly. It acts as an extension of the frame and is made of Aluminum (AL 6061 T6/T651).

Analysis during Acceleration During acceleration, the assembly mount is subject to inertial forces. Figure (118) and
(119) show the resulting negligible deformation and peak stress of 425 kPa, leading to a factor of safety of 649 for the
acceleration case.

Fig. 118 Deformation results from the acceleration load case of the analysis on the horizontal fixture mechanism
assembly mount

76
Fig. 119 Stress results from the acceleration load case of the analysis on the horizontal fixture mechanism
assembly mount

Analysis during Braking When braking, the only forces acting on the mechanism mount once again are inertial
forces. Figure (120) and (121). This also results in a negligible deflection and a peak stress of only 75.6 kPa. This gives
a factor of safety of over 3500 for the braking case.

Fig. 120 Deformation results from the braking load case of the analysis on the horizontal fixture mechanism
assembly mount

77
Fig. 121 Stress results from the braking load case of the analysis on the horizontal fixture mechanism assembly
mount

Analysis in the Event of a Crash The crash case applied a 5 kN force on the bottom edge of the mount, representing
a force 10 times greater than what would be expected from the springs of the fixture mechanism and causing the greatest
possible moment on the part. Figure (122) and (123) show the results. This results in a deformation of 0.7 mm and a
peak stress of 196.2 MPa.

Fig. 122 Deformation results from the crash load case of the analysis on the horizontal fixture mechanism
assembly mount

78
Fig. 123 Stress results from the crash load case of the analysis on the horizontal fixture mechanism assembly
mount

Anticipated Vibration Response Model analysis led to the first vibration mode being discovered at 1737 Hz. Due to
the high vibration mode of this part, additional harmonic response analysis was not conducted.

9. Vertical Fixture Mechanism, Z-Bar

Similar to the horizontal fixture mechanism, the vertical fixture mechanism is designed to prevent vertical motion of
the bod along the track. The only difference between the two assemblies is that the vertical mechanism is a bit smaller
and more compact in order to remain outside of the keep-out zones that run along the central I-beam. Due to the
similarities between the designs, additional in-depth analysis was not performed on the vertical fixture mechanism.

10. Vertical Fixture Mechanism, Axle Mount

The axle mount on the vertical fixture mechanism is the exact same as what is used on the horizontal mechanism.
See Section IV.O.6 for details.

11. Vertical Fixture Mechanism, Spring Mount

The spring mount on the vertical fixture mechanism is the exact same as what is used on the horizontal mechanism.
See Section IV.O.7 for details.

12. Vertical Fixture Mechanism Assembly Mount

The assembly mount of the vertical fixture mechanism serves as the mounting point for the entire vertical fixture
assembly. It acts as an extension of the frame and is made of Aluminum (AL 6061 T6/T651).

Analysis during Acceleration During acceleration, the assembly mount is subject to inertial forces. Figure (152) and
(125) show the resulting negligible deformation and peak stress of 1.06 MPa, leading to a factor of safety of 260 for the
acceleration case.

79
Fig. 124 Deformation results from the acceleration load case of the analysis on the vertical fixture mechanism
assembly mount

Fig. 125 Stress results from the acceleration load case of the analysis on the vertical fixture mechanism assembly
mount

Analysis during Braking When braking, the only forces acting on the mechanism mount once again are inertial
forces. Figure (126) and (127). This also results in a negligible deflection and a peak stress of 188.7 kPa. This gives a
factor of safety of 1462 for the braking case.

80
Fig. 126 Deformation results from the braking load case of the analysis on the vertical fixture mechanism
assembly mount

Fig. 127 Stress results from the braking load case of the analysis on the vertical fixture mechanism assembly
mount

Analysis in the Event of a Crash The crash case applied a 5 kN force on the bottom edge of the mount, representing
a force 10 times greater than what would be expected from the springs of the fixture mechanism and causing the greatest
possible moment on the part. Figure (128) and (129) show the results. This results in a deformation of 1.5 mm and a
peak stress of 252.8 MPa.

81
Fig. 128 Deformation results from the crash load case of the analysis on the vertical fixture mechanism assembly
mount

Fig. 129 Stress results from the crash load case of the analysis on the vertical fixture mechanism assembly
mount

Anticipated Vibration Response Model analysis led to the first vibration mode being discovered at 1159 Hz. Due to
the high vibration mode of this part, additional harmonic response analysis was not conducted.

13. Ski Wheel Mechanism, Z-Bar

The z-bar of the ski wheel mechanism is what holds the fixture assembly together and is made of Aluminum
(AL 6061 T6/T651). It links the wheels, the axle, and the spring suspension into a single system. Unlike the other
spring-wheel assemblies, the ski wheel isn’t meant to stabilize the pod during it’s run, but rather serves as a redundant
rolling mechanism should the maglev systems fail.

Analysis during Acceleration During acceleration, the z-bar is subject to inertial forces. Additionally, the resting
force of the spring was applied to one end while the mass of the pod was applied to the other. This would be the load
case as the pod is waiting to begin it’s full speed test, and the overall load on the ski wheel mechanism should decrease
over the course of the run due to the maglev system taking over the role of supporting the pod. Figure (130) and (131).
This resulted in a total deformation of 0.33 mm and a peak stress of 77.3 MPa. This gives a factor of safety of 3.57 for
the acceleration case.

82
Fig. 130 Deformation results from the acceleration load case of the analysis on the ski wheel mechanism, z-bar

Fig. 131 Stress results from the acceleration load case of the analysis on the ski wheel mechanism, z-bar

Analysis during Braking When braking, the only forces acting on the z-bar once again are inertial forces and forces
from the spring taking the pod weight. Figure (132) and (133). This also results in a 0.33 mm deflection and a peak
stress of 77.2 kPa. This gives a factor of safety of 3.58 for the braking case.

Fig. 132 Deformation results from the braking load case of the analysis on the ski wheel mechanism, z-bar

83
 Fig. 133 Stress results from the braking load case of the analysis on the ski wheel mechanism, z-bar

Analysis in the Event of a Crash The crash case applied 4 times the regular inertial load to the z-bar as well as the
full spring tension force. The only time this would occur is if maglev failed and the pod was forced into the ground (as
the springs are rated for double the mass of the pod itself). Figure (134) and (135) show the results. This results in a
deflection of 0.90 mm and a maximum stress of 193.8 MPa. While the part is not at the failure load yet in this crash
case, the factor of safety has reduced to 1.42, which is below the required FOS of 2.

Fig. 134 Deformation results from the crash load case of the analysis on the ski wheel mechanism, z-bar

Fig. 135 Stress results from the crash load case of the analysis on the ski wheel mechanism, z-bar

84
Anticipated Vibration Response Model analysis led to the first vibration mode being discovered at 350 Hz. This
is outside the range of anticipated external vibration of our pod, but to be thorough, a 1 kN force was applied to the
model harmonically near at that frequency. The results can be seen in Fig. (136), where a negligible deformation was
experienced.

Fig. 136 The first vibration mode of the ski wheel mechanism, z-bar, 350 Hz

14. Actions Taken as a Result of the Analysis

Prior to running the above analysis, the ski wheel z-bar was considerably thinner and had smaller fillets, resulting in
a reduced mass. However, due to the fact that the ski wheels need to be able to support the pod without the maglev
system while at rest, it was found that the thinner z-bars did not meet the factor of safety requirements (resulting factor
of safety was below 1.5). With the thicker z-bar exhibiting a FOS of 3.57, this analysis shows that the design could
technically be more lean and still fulfill requirements. However, due to the structural nature of the part and the relatively
low mass contribution, the team decided to keep the thicker z-bar allowing for more structural margin.

15. Ski Wheel Mechanism, Axle Mount

The axle mount on the vertical fixture mechanism is extremely similar to what is used on the horizontal mechanism
(the ski wheel uses two slightly modified axle mounts which facilitate a different mounting position on the frame).
Because the FOS of the horizontal fixture axle mounts was over 3000, additional analysis was not performed for the ski
wheel mechanism. See Section IV.O.6 for details.

16. Ski Wheel Mechanism, Spring Mount

The spring mount on the ski wheel mechanism is the exact same as what is used on the horizontal mechanism. Due
to the horizontal fixture spring mount having a FOS of 59, additional analysis was not performed. See Section IV.O.7
for details.

17. Maglev Ski

The maglev ski is the assembly that attaches the halbach array to the frame of the pod. It’s made of carbon fiber
composite and Aluminum (AL 6061-T6/T651). Further details on the levitation mechanism are found in Section IV.M.

Analysis during Acceleration During acceleration, the maglev ski is subject to inertial forces in addition to full
weight of the pod in the upward direction from the magnets. Figure (137) and (138). This resulted in a negligible
deflection and a peak stress of 6.2 MPa, with the peak stress occurring in the carbon fiber part. This gives a factor of
safety of 82.74 for the acceleration case.

85
 Fig. 137 Deformation results from the acceleration load case of the analysis on the maglev skis

Fig. 138 Stress results from the acceleration load case of the analysis on the maglev skis

Analysis during Braking When braking, the only forces acting on the maglev skis are inertial forces and magnetic
lift forces. Figure (139) and (140). This results in a negligible deflection and a peak stress of 3.79 MPa. This gives a
factor of safety of 135 for the braking case, as the maximum stress was in the carbon fiber material.

Fig. 139 Deformation results from the braking load case of the analysis on the maglev skis

86
 Fig. 140 Stress results from the braking load case of the analysis on the maglev skis

Analysis in the Event of a Crash The crash case applied 4 times the regular inertial load to the maglev skis as well as
a frictional force of the base of the skis sliding along the Aluminum subtrack. Figure (141) and (142) show the results.
This results in a deflection negligible length and a maximum stress of 19.9 MPa.

Fig. 141 Deformation results from the crash load case of the analysis on the ski wheel mechanism, z-bar

Fig. 142 Stress results from the crash load case of the analysis on the ski wheel mechanism, z-bar

87
Anticipated Vibration Response Model analysis led to the first vibration mode being discovered at 577 Hz. This is
outside the range of anticipated external vibration of our pod, and additional response analysis was not performed.

P. Payload Capability
As currently designed, the CU Hyperloop pod has very little space for payloads, volumetrically. Due to the large
tank and the necessary propulsion parts associated with it, much of the frame and shell volume is occupied. However,
the large tank also means that there is more overhead for increases in pod mass while still maintaining a high speed.
This would mostly come from changes in the plumbing geometry and nozzle design, as they are the two limiting factors
to top speed with this tank. That being said, any increase in mass or top speed would likely need to be accompanied
with an increase in track length, as the acceleration and braking loads are quite high as it is.

V. Sling Design and Analysis

A. Top-Level Sling Launch System (SLS) Design

The creation of Sling Launch System is inspired by that of launch systems employed on aircraft carriers of various
types. The general premise is the transfer of energy from a hydraulic or steam propelled catapult system to that of an
aircraft body. The same premise holds for a system used in the hyperloop; using some portion of surrounding track and
some type of system to provide the pod with an initial boost with energy transfer. The effectiveness of such system
depends highly on the Hyperloop pod design.
The original necessity or want for this idea came into usage with the Magnetic levitation system employed within
our pod. This boost was to allow the pod to reach a speed required for the magnetic levitation to initialize. This
does come with a significant downside; magnetic levitation does provide a substantial amount of resistance at lower
speeds. As a result, it would require more energy to accelerate the pod at the beginning of acceleration. A Sling Launch
System would help Hyperloop pod accelerate to a speed that magnetic resistance is low enough for its own propulsion
mechanism, eliminating the need for heavier systems relating to wheels (including necessary suspension, etc).
Ideally, a lower weight would suit the Sling system. Ultimately the force would yield a higher output of acceleration
in the length the acceleration would occur. At the time of designing initially, the pod weight was that of 150 kg. As of
this submission, however, due to unforeseen forces regarding the manufacturing components of the pod, this weight has
risen to 400 kg maximum. While unfortunate, the sling system still provides a significant speed to the pod as a whole.
Speed and Acceleration The force applied on the pod at the sling launch system originates from the extension force
of a spring matrix, which acts as our main method of force transfer. Specifics into the sling spring choice and design will
be elaborated on further within the document. As a result, the force distribution of the sling is similar to force generated
from extension of a spring. The spring force is F = k ∗ x, for which F is the force generated, k is the spring constant,
and x is the compression/extension length of the spring. This results in an expected linear decrease of acceleration force
applying on the pod when accelerating. Specifics of the matrix design will be elaborated on further within the design
document.
One important part is to notice that at the beginning of acceleration, the magnetic resistance due to the passive
magnetic levitation design would reduce the total force for acceleration of the pod. This peaks at a total of nearly 800
N for one array. This tops at 3200 N of resistance for the currently approximated four halbach arrays. The magnetic
resistance shows an exponential decay pattern: the force decrease dramatically when the speed goes up. This effect on
force directly will be explained further on in the document.
Although the spring matrix and transmission system is designed by considering mainly total kinetic energy that a
400 pound pod need to accelerate to 25m/s, it is still necessary to compute the theoretical final speed after launch based
on force distribution, because of the existence of magnetic resistance. This is the primary resistance force preventing the
theoretical speed form being obtainable.
The theoretical calculation of generated force stems from the above Kinetic energy calculation mentioned, placed
below:
mv 2
U= 2

or, for a predicted velocity of 25 ms , this is around 125 kJ worth of energy needed. The spring design, for the chosen
setup of the spring matrix, yields 84.6 kJ of energy when applying the safety factor of 1.43, which is the standard safety
factor for spring material. Converting this to speed yields approximately 20 ms . This is the maximum theoretical speed

88
possible, without consideration of any external forces. As of currently, nearly 10 ms are required to achieve magnetic
levitation. This gives a comfortable buffer for unforeseen forces such as component friction relating to the spring itself.
The main process moving forward from the previous section of the competition was the development of the spring
and components directly relating to the spring matrix. This involved directly the motor, matrix loading system, the
system directly attaching the matrix to the I-Beam.

B. Dimensions
The sling system is not made up of any one singular component. Rather, it encompasses a wide range of different
components all together. Below are the different components listed that contain different size specifications as a whole.

Spring Matrix The Spring matrix is 6 feet in length, with accompanying components the same approximate length.

Fig. 143 The Full render of the sling, Pusher cart and tether removed for sake of viewing.

Fig. 144 Full Motor with Gearbox, and loading rack and pinion.

Sling Transmission and Motor

89
 Main Subsection Predicted Weight (kg)
Electronic Wiring 4
Actuators 10
Batteries –
Electric Motor 11
Misc. 5
Sling Springs 15
Plates(L supports) 15
Locking Systems 15
Gears 10
Brake Connections/Matrix 14
Sling Launcher Plate 6
Sling Tethers 10
Sling Tether Poles/w Electrical cuts 10
Structural Assorted Weights 5
Main Structure 40
Structural Supports for side tube(P) 10
Main Tether Rigging 15
End of Sling body component 30
Total 225

1. SLS Mass Breakdown

2. SLS Testing and Validation plan

As per the SpaceX recommendation and following further development on the sling project as a whole, a stricter
testing and validation plan has been devised and placed below. This plan is designed to be worked in tandem with
Structural and mechanical sub team testing, focusing firstly on the spring development and ending with structural design
testing.

Fig. 145 The Testing/Validation plan for the foreseeable future.

90
C. Material Usage
Spring The spring material selection faced a limitation on capability of manufacturability. The original designed
material is Inconel x750, which is a highly specialized material that most manufacturers do not carry. It is expected then
that the price would be rather costly. So the material of the chosen spring change to Stainless Steel 304. This material is
far more accessible and provides a reasonable expectation of cost for the team.

Tether The tether material needs to deliver a force a fifth of the maximum force, which is approximately 50 kN (or a
lbf of 11,500). This will be met with the usage of steel wire tethers, which at this time is 9/16" Spin Resistant Bright
Wire Rope EIPS IWRC, with a predicted break strength of 29,400 lbf. This will account for an acceptable Factor of
safety of 2.6.

Structural support As of current, it is expected that all structural components not specifically mentioned here will be
made of Aluminum 80/20, or of Aluminum sheet metal for a variety of supports. This is due primarily to the materials
ease of attainability and robust usage in construction projects.

D. Structural Design

1. Analysis during Acceleration

Analysis of the pod and structure during acceleration can be distributed into a variety of subsections as whole; in its
entirety, the pod should be viewed through its initial launch phase, undergoing acceleration from the loaded spring
matrix, then by its post sling phase, undergoing gas thrusting. Both the Propulsion and Mechanical sections of this
report elaborate more specifically on this. This section will seek to clarify how the Structure built purely in support of
the spring matrix and sling as a whole respond to its self delivered acceleration.
Force distribution through the sling works as a fourth order magnitude; after the sling is loaded, and subsequently
released, the force releases roughly as a fourth of expected maximum force and energy. This stems from the length
of the spring matrix and its energy distribution over roughly 4 times the distance (where the matrix dimension is
approximately six feet long, and the total launch distance is roughly eighteen feet long). This is a method concerned
with the conservation of work, where the energy loaded into the spring in the first six feet are distributed entirely for the
full launch.
This does have some benefits. The body and structure now undergo a fourth of the maximum force, which for the
entirety of the sling is 186,600 N. As a result, the maximum force the structure feels during release is 46,500 N roughly.
This means the body needs to account overall for two different extreme scenarios; that being the high amount of force
needed to load the matrix of 186 kN, and that of the maximum release force of 46.5 kN. That of a body that can survive
the first force in its extremity, and survive any momentum imparted by the sudden and rapid release, can survive the
launch of the spring matrix.
While no singular component is completely safe from failure with out unrealistic design, few components appear
more apt to this catastrophe than others. These are the components that will be analyzed under these acceleration forces
in the following section.

2. Analysis in the Event of a Failure

Analysis of the sling, in the event of a potential failure, involves the analysis of components most likely to have
potential failures in the sling system. These include specific components that feel the largest load within the sling
system. Below are the listed components and the following analysis of the components. This section seeks to address
component reaction in event of failure, and analysis of the potential of this failure happening.

Sling tether and tether brace The Tether, as previously described in the Material section, is composed of Spin
Resistant Bright Wire Rope, which can resist a normal stress breakage up to 29,400 lb; this should be plenty for the
release of the loaded matrix. The Tether brace, as previously designed, was a circular component that acted as the turn
around point for the sling tether to pull forward the pod sled. This component feels Shear stress with its mounting
counterpart, or the designed support structure built in entirety around the pod and track. Both this piece and the
surrounding structure must resist and distribute the applied force on the location accordingly. This tether support and
surrounding structure compose the final phase of design and validation largely following this submission, given the
prior necessity to find a spring capable of providing necessary thrust for magnetic levitation.

91
Static Brake This is the brake below the Sling matrix, built to secure the matrix to the I-beam. This section as a
whole will be elaborated on further on in this document.

Motor and Locking System The Primary concern relating to the Motor system directly relates to the output gears
used. Directly, this involves the mechanical failure due to teeth stress felt by any of the gears involved with the task of
transferring the output Torque to the loading of the Sling matrix. Further analysis will be required of these final gears
when final selection is made, including final testing to be required on gears to ensure failure does not occur. system
similar to anti rollback systems employed on Roller coasters and devices of similar design was proposed regarding the
motor locking systems. Due largely to a late development in the main idea adopted for the spring matrix loading motor,
this idea would prove difficult to implement. Rather, an idea proposed involved a static locking system behind the rack
and pinion loading position. As the rack would move along its designated path, spring loaded actuators would lock
into a static position behind the rack. This idea has its advantages in its simplicity and ease of addition to a support
structure that will already be necessitated by the rack and pinion design, with relatively simple integration. This is to be
developed in the final phases of design and validation. The motor itself provides an output torque of approximately 1
N*m, where the required output torque must yield an immense value in comparison. Depending on the gears chosen, a
nearly ratio of 1 to nearly 25,000 is needed. This is, of course, absurd even in the best of scenarios. That requires that
the specified motor used currently needs to be upgraded significantly for a higher HP, in addition to the invention of a
substantial transmission system. The team investigated motors on the cost order of nearly 60,000 USD, and this still
required a gear ratio of nearly 1 to 75. While this system is theoretically possible, the cost vs the output of nearly 20 m/s
of speed shows a substantial loss in benefit of the sling system. Multiple solutions exist; using perhaps multiple motors,
as well as large gear boxes in series will solve this problem.

3. Anticipated Vibration Environments

The primary amount of vibration should come from the Motor responsible for loading the spring matrix, as well as
the release of the spring matrix during the launching phase. Vibrations expected from launch through release of gas
tanks should occur well after sling release, and with an effect that will be negligible to the sling release as a whole
(considering its action occurs Post sling release and the sling will not be expected to perform any tasks post launch).
The motor is subject to change; as previously mentioned the motor is not currently powerful enough to power the
given system. However, assuming this motor provides the necessary torque, it is possible to analyze this system as a
single degree of freedom oscillator, with the output vibration being provided by the sling release.
This requires some assumptions. No damping is considered within the system. The mass attached at the end of the
spring (which is the spring matrix combined into one singular spring) is the plate weight at the end, which is assumed to
be 6 kg. This plate is the plate the sling system pulls. As such, outside forces such as the pod are not considered. This is
purely the sling as an analytical device. Solving for the coefficients relating to an undamped, Single degree of freedom
oscillator, with a forcing function equated to zero and using the respective displacement of 6 ft and spring coefficient
above, the amplitude remains steady as .175 consistently, with a frequency of 5.72 Hz. Further analysis is required on
these values and the avoidance of resonance in the Spring in the future. While this analysis has many liberties taken
through simplifications, it provides a small overlook into the expected values to be obtained.

E. Track Fixture Mechanism

Static Brake System Friction brakes are attached to the Spring Matrix and to the Track behind the main pod, as well
as friction brakes attached to the Sling Structure on the track behind the main Pod. Brakes will be attached to the track,
on both sides of the pod. This static brake must resist largely the 186 kN loading force seen in the initial loading phase.
For pure friction brakes of some kind, this means a double sided brake connecting the sling matrix to the I-beam would
need to apply approximately 93 kN of friction on either side of the I-beam (or approximately 20,000 lb). This allows a
design solution of relatively standard friction devices, given a reasonable static friction value. This led to the design of a
C-Clamp matrix below the Spring matrix, connecting the matrix to the I-beam without inhibiting the motion of the
springs, and providing the necessary friction to hold the beam in place. The current choice for a C-clamp stands as a
Forged Steel C-Clamp, with a clamping pressure of 8750 lb. Given the coefficient of friction between Forged steel and
Aluminum is .6 at a maximum, this means a safe amount of clamps would be six on either side of the Matrix, with
provides roughly 280 kN of clamping force (or a FOS of approximately, 1.5).

92
F. Sensor List
• Battery Voltage: This is to monitor the voltage of the battery to ensure that it stays within a safe range for operation.
The BMS will be taking this measurement.
• Battery Current: This is to monitor the output current of the battery to ensure that the system is not drawing too
much current. The BMS will be taking this measurement.
• Battery Temperature: This is to monitor the temperature of the battery and ensure it is within an acceptable range.
• Hall Effect sensor: This will be used to know when the spring system is pushed back to the locking location.
• LIDAR: We’d like to use LIDAR on the pod but have been warned about ineffectiveness and faulty data due to dust
in the test track. Additionally, an upper limit has not been determined for the LIDAR’s maximum acceleration. To
not have dead weight on the pod, the LIDAR will be on the sling and will attempt to track the pod as it launches
away. Data from this system will be logged and compared with the data from the other navigation systems. If the
LIDAR system performs well, it will be used for future pod designs.

G. Control

1. Electronic Control Units

The electronic functionality of the SLS will be enacted and monitored by a central control unit. This functionality
includes collecting and processing data from the sensors, communicating with the pod, communicating with the team
and safely managing the storage of energy within the springs.
The central control unit monitors proper connection to the pod and controls the motor which slowly stores energy
in the springs. It communicates this information via Wi-Fi so the team can monitor the system status remotely. If an
critical error is detected or the team sends a command, the central control unit must stop adding energy to the springs
and slowly allow them to return to an equilibrium position.
The central control unit will be the development board for the STM32F series microprocessor. This is the same
board being used for preliminary development and evaluation for the pod, and therefore the sling will be able to utilize
many of the same drivers as the pod.

2. Intra-SLS Communications
Communication within the SLS takes multiple forms. The hall effect sensors communicate via analog signals
which can be interpreted as either digital signals representing whether the pod is connecting to the sling. Similarly,
digital signals from the batteries and power converters will communicate if something is not operating nominally. The
combination of these signals and the UART data received from the pod will be packetized and sent to the network
processor which will manage the network stack before transmitting the information at 2.4Ghz over Wi-Fi.

3. Software Control States

The overall functionality of the SLS is fairly simple and thus there are not many required software controlled states.
In the case of normal operation, the system will be in "nominal operation". In this state, the power converters and
batteries are functioning properly, and the sensors indicate stable connection to the pod. If these conditions are met,
the motor will receive power allowing energy to put stored in the spring matrix. If one of these conditions fails to be
met, the system will enter "pending error" while the team reviews the identified error. During the pending error state,
the motor is stopped and held static until a decision is made. If the team decides the presented error is significant, a
command will be sent to put the system into "unwind and reset" mode. In this condition, the motor is reversed to remove
energy from the spring matrix. Finally, in the event of an emergency the system can enter "emergency shutdown". This
can be triggered by a command from the team or pressing a large shutdown button. In this state, the high voltage line to
the motor is shutoff entirely.

4. Power
PA UN38.3 certified lithium-ion battery provides power at 24 volts to 4 power converters which raise or lower the
voltage to appropriate levels for all components.

93
Fig. 146 SLS System Diagram

Fig. 147 SLS Power

94
H. Spring Matrix Design
In order to accelerate the Hyperloop pod in less than 20 ft, it is required to have an energy storage component that
is capable of releasing a large amount of kinetic energy rapidly. The sling system chooses to use a spring matrix to
function as said component. The matrix was originally designed to accelerate a 150 kg hyperloop pod to 50 m/s. But
due to the limitation on spring material usage and increase weight of hyperloop pod, the current spring matrix design is
expected to accelerate the pod to 21 m/s after launch. This still satisfies the magnetic levitation requirement as specified
in prior sections.

1. Spring Selection
A 5 x 5 spring layout was chosen for the spring matrix. In reality, the more springs used within the matrix allow
for a greater usage of space in the allocated matrix area, which allow for a greater amount of energy to be stored.
Theoretically, the energy storage/force generated relates to the total active spring material in the spring matrix. The
difference between different numbers of springs within the matrix area provide some trade-offs between each design.
There is no simplified method of loading the spring matrix for starts. Assembling the spring matrix with individual
springs by hand will be necessary. As a result, a spring matrix with large quantities of springs would not be ideal. The
risk of a failure or break in any of the springs in the matrix is more negligible in nature with a higher quantity of springs
at this expense, while the matrix design with less springs is riskier and at a higher risk in total for breakage. So a
relatively moderate number of springs is chosen for the spring matrix design. For realistic purposes, a 5 x 5 spring
matrix satisfies a successful amount of force generation and is priced within a expected budgetary range.
An number of amount of materials and designs were inspected for force generation, in which a generative spring
design tool was created for the usage of creating a suitable spring. By optimizing maximum design consideration, the
spring detailed in Table (10) was chosen for the 5 x 5 spring matrix.

Table 10 Details of the spring selected for use in the sling matrix

Spring Type Helical Extension Spring

Material ASTM A313
mean diameter (m) 0.139
wire diameter (m) 0.017
active coil number 36
Spring Constant K (N/m) 7445
max Load (N) 10140
max deflection (m) 1.362
solid length (m) 0.612
max energy (J) 6905

Consideration of choosing energy storage unit The team considered multiple options for the energy storage unit
in the SLS, including pneumatic springs, compression springs, extension springs, a battery with electric motor, and
compressed air. After detailed analysis of each option, the team choose extension spring to store such energy. The trade
offs taken into consideration are shown in Table 11.

Table 11 Comparison of different possible mechanisms of energy storage within the sling

Energy Storage Unit Type Energy Storage Manufacturability Durability

Extension Spring High High High
Compression Spring Medium High High
Battery & Electric Motor Low High High
Pneumatic Spring Very High Low Medium
Compressed Air High Low Low

95
 The three major trade-offs between each energy storage system are: energy storage capability, manufacturability
and Re-usability, with decreasing importance. The most important part would be efficiency and capability to store
energy and quickly release that energy. From such a perspective, a system comprised of a battery with electric motor is
eliminated because of its’ lack of capability to rapidly release kinetic energy.
The major difference between a extension spring and a compression spring design was to consider the fact that a
compression spring would experience a "buckle" when the spring length-diameter ratio is too high. Considering this
effect, a extension spring has overall advantage compared to a compression spring in our design, as the springs are
designed to store energy. This means the longer distance that spring could deform, the more energy that spring could
store. Some other differences between such two spring types were discussed, such as the potential to use a compression
spring matrix directly behind the pod, with which system no tether/pulley system required. This design was determined
less favorable because of the substantially shorter acceleration length limit due to such design, which could cause
considerable loss of kinetic energy during acceleration.

I. Link to Pod

1. Electrical Connections
There will be a plate to plate connection between the pod and the sling for power and ground, with a switch on the
pod side to reduce stress on the power supply after disconnect. The purpose of this connection is to allow the pod to be
powered from the sling during pump down, which makes the pod have less battery mass.

2. Communications
The sling will communicate to the ground station via the same radio system as used by the pod. There will not be
direct communication between the sling and pod, all will go through the ground station first. The sling will communicate
health and status before, during, and after launch to the ground station. The mechanical health and status will include
if the sling has no mechanically stored energy and is safe to approach, is in the process of compressing the spring
mechanism, if the spring mechanism is secured in ready to launch position, and launching. Additionally, the sling will
send the ground station electrical health and status, particularly the voltage, current, and temperature of the batteries.

VI. Pod Trajectory Analysis

Further details on the anticipated trajectory of the pod can be found in Section IV.G.6.

96
A. Speed vs. Position

Fig. 148 Modeling result of velocity plotted over position.

B. Acceleration vs. Time

Fig. 149 Modeling result of acceleration over time

97
C. Speed vs. Time

Fig. 150 Modeling result of pod velocity over time

D. Position vs. Time

Fig. 151 Modeling result of pod position over time

98
 VII. Functional Testing Program

A. Mechanical Systems
In order to verify the pod will be able to function mechanically when it runs, testing must first occur to ensure
predictions are reasonable and to spot any potential failures previously unrecognized. Much of the opportunity for
mechanical failure can be traced to having a structurally inferior pod. Analysis run in ANSYS shows that the pod is
structurally sound and will not deform much when expected loads are applied. An Instron machine will be used to
verify that ANSYS is accurate in predicting stress and strain of each material used for structural components. A test will
also be run to determine the specific coefficient of friction between the brake pad and the rail material. In addition to the
stress-strain measurement, a known force can be applied on each component put under significant strain and deformation
can be measured to further verify ANSYS modeled the pod reasonably. If possible, a heat generation analysis will be
conducted in order to better characterize the thermal reaction to braking from 400 mph in a short distance. This will have
to be a scaled test, as there isn’t currently anywhere other than the SpaceX test track where we could get up to full speed.

Final tests will involve ensuring the pod fits onto the track and that .076 cm of movement can be achieved in each
axial direction. This will ensure that the suspension is acting as designed and as expected. Brake assemblies will also be
tested to verify they impart the required clamping force on the web of a small piece of test track.

B. Electrical Systems
As the majority of the electrical components are being built by the Hyperdrive Senior Capstone team, testing on the
electronics systems will be rigorous. Component level testing will be performed on each board to ensure functionality
and all parts will be tested for basic functionality before any integration steps. There are validation and verification tests
planned for each of the HEC requirements, including emergency and non emergency shutdown functionality, power
system operation, communications, and environmental conditions, etc. Additionally, thermal and vibe tests will be
performed on all populated boards. Batteries will undergo a similar test regime with additional vacuum compatibility
testing. Under normal circumstances, boards will not undergo vacuum compatibility testing on their own since the
components being selected are vacuum-rated and all assembly materials being used (epoxy, solder, etc.) are rated for
vacuum.

C. Propulsion Systems
A number of different tests will be performed on the propulsion system including a leak test thrust test. Details of
these tests are found in Section IV.G.7.

D. Levitation Systems
Testing has already been conducted on maglev systems and is set to continue. Details are in Section IV.M.6.

E. Software
Software testing will be performed concurrently with electrical testing because of their close relationship. The
majority of the software is also under the Hyperdrive Capstone team.

F. Top-Level Integration and Testing

After final integration, all systems will be tested for functionality under normal conditions. Fit checks will be
performed with track sections to ensure proper clearance with all components. Additional testing will be completed at
the request of SpaceX and the competition organizers.
Should CU Hyperloop advance, more coordination between the team and competition advisers will help to develop
a comprehensive test plan to ensure the pod is ready for competition.

VIII. Production Schedule

The production schedule was created using Mcrosoft Project. Unfortunately, this doesn’t lend itself well to pictures
in reports, so included is a task list with subsection assignment, approximate task duration, start and finish dates, and

99
task predecessors. We have uploaded the Microsoft Project file to our team’s shared Drive and have made it available to
anyone with the link for sharing purposes. To view the full project shcedule with visible timeline and critical path,
please visit: https://drive.google.com/open?id=14mcLBBPsVqK5WiUagoDyhpRUNtaaTrs8

100
101
102
103
104
Fig. 152 Pod production task list with deadlines

105
 IX. Financial Plans

Fig. 153 Pod production cost breakdown

106
A. Current Sponsors
CU Hyperloop is currently supported by a number of campus organizations and industry sponsors. While the
majority of our teams sponsors do not directly provide monetary support, they support us in other ways with access to
software licenses, discounts on purchases, and facility support.
In exchange for sponsoring CU Hyperloop, we provide the organization’s logo on our pod (size determined by
valuation of sponsorship), the organization’s logo on our website (cuhyperloop.com), and periodic shout-outs on our
team’s Instagram account (@CUHyperloop).
A full list of out team’s supporters is below.

1. $10,000 and Above

2. $1,000 and Above

3. $500 and Above

107
 X. Scalability Analysis
Overall, the 2019 CU Hyperloop design is moderately scalable to a full size hyperloop system.
The Sling Launch System is particularly scalable in concept, though not necessarily using the same design as we
are using right now. The biggest roadblock with the sling at the current scale is that due to the length requirements,
high speed boost require a very high acceleration. This puts additional load on the pod and sling structure. Having a
longer distance for the sling to accelerate the hyperloop pod would be a huge benefit. However, the spring design for the
current sling launch system does not lend itself well to scalability. Springs are just not a great mechanism for storing
energy over longer distances. Instead, compressed gas could be used and full scale hyperloop sling launch systems
would act like the catapults on aircraft carriers. Due to the spring design not scaling well however, the scalability of the
sling will not be further discussed.
The propulsion mechanism on the pod is also very scalable. Due to the low atmospheric pressure and the low
friction from the maglev system, speed after total gas expulsion decays fairly slowly. A larger pod with multiple tanks of
high pressure gas could maintain its speed over very long distances by thrusting to reach top speed then periodically
firing it’s thrusters to maintain it.
In a full scale hyperloop, we envision hyperloop stations where stored gas is loaded onto awaiting pods. Full size
sling launch systems, extending 100 m or longer, sit at each station, launching pods to their destination. With the boost,
on board magnetic levitation kicks in prior to propulsion system firing, which takes the pod up to it’s maximum speed.
Once there, the pod fires short impulses of thrust to maintain speed until it reaches it’s destination.

A. Scaling Physical Size

Focusing first on propulsion, single large tanks are inherently more energy dense than multiple smaller tanks of
equal final volume and pressure. This is because the single large tank only needs support equipment for itself, whereas
multiple tanks would require support equipment for each tank (actual parts like pressure relief and fill valves as well as
structural components like inner metal cores in the case of Type 3 and below COPVs). As such, it’d likely make the
most sense to use a single large pressure vessel on the full scale hyperloop pod.
With the modularity of CU Hyperloop’s mechanical and electrical systems, additional length and mass would simply
translate to using more parts. Additional fixture mechanism, additional maglev skis, additional brakes etc. Of course,
the design would need to be modified to accommodate larger loads, but the the premise can remain the same.
Electronics and sensors can also remain the same, as they will be serving the exact same purpose as before. One
notable difference is batteries, as a bigger pod carrying out longer trips will require more power to run.
Tripling pod dimensions would result in a pod that was 2.25 m wide, nearly 2 m tall, and 11.4 m long. Even if only
the front third of the pod was used for cabin space, you’d still be left with a cabin volume large enough for 4 people.
Assuming mass increases are mostly linear, the final pod would weigh in at 1260 kg, just under that of a Model 3. While
the linear mass factor is fairly simple, it’s somewhat reasonable due to the weight savings of using singular large tanks.

B. Cost
While tripling the physical dimensions of the pod results could result in mostly linear increases in mass, it likely
would not result in linear cost increases. The cost of manufacturing and certifying larger tanks is difficult and expensive,
and there also just aren’t many companies doing it. Getting a tank triple the size of the current design (at our scale, a
cost of $6250) would likely cost much more than $19,000. On top of that, the current CU Hyperloop thrust plate is
already made out of aerospace grade Titanium due to the extremely large thrust loads. A larger pod would conceivable
have event higher thrust forces to contend with, so material costs and manufacturing costs would likely go up sharply.
Savings could probably be found in the manufacturing of the frame and shell, although CU Hyperloop is already buying
composite materials in the largest available consumer length from our vendor (50 linear yards at a time). Overall, with
the CU Hyperloop competition pod costing around $35,000, a triple scale version would likely cost much greater than
$105,000 per pod until they could be made at sufficient scale.

C. Maintenance
As mentioned earlier, CU Hyperloop’s assemblies are extremely modular, particularly the mechanical and electrical
systems like the fixture mechanisms and endpoint power converters. Because of this maintenance and repairs of pod
systems could be completed relatively quickly. However, due to the complexity and uniqueness of the shell and frame
components, failures in these parts would represent significant repair challenges.

108
 XI. Competition Day Procedures
All competition procedures are top level overviews only and subject to change upon further information and guidance
from the competition organizers.

A. Transportation to California
Transporting the pod to California for competition at SpaceX will be accomplished using ground transport methods.
Most likely, a handful of team members will drive from Colorado to California and will haul the pod and SLS systems
with a trailer. During this transport, all pressure vessels will be emptied and all DOT regulations for transporting
pressure vessels will be followed.

B. Staging Area to Track

Due to the weight of the pod and the sling, transport from the staging area to the actual track will have to occur
using the forklift and a custom designed lift fixture. If possible, CU Hyperloop will request to move the pod and sling
separately, loading the pod into the tube prior to the sling. Once both assemblies are in the tube, the pod will be hooked
up and connected to the sling launch plate and the tube sealing and pump down procedure can begin.
During the pump down procedure, the team will be motoring pod and sling telemetry. During this time, the sling
will begin charging it’s spring matrix, priming for launch.

C. Ready-To-Launch Checklist
The ready to launch checklist will be completed immediately prior to the countdown and launch. While it would
represent a reduced performance, a lunch could proceed with only the CRITICAL checklist items being completed.
These represent the minimum safety and performance requirements to complete a test.

1. CRITICAL
• Pod is in the IDLE state
• Pod is returning nominal telemetry
• Confirmation that on-pod battery voltage is at appropriate levels
• Confirmation that pod position measurement is reasonable
• Confirmation that pod brakes are retracted and primed for deployment
• Go ahead by competition organizers

2. SECONDARY
• Sling Launch System charged
• SLS in NOMINAL OPERATION state
• SLS telemetry is nominal
• Confirmation that pod is in contact with SLS launch plate
• Tube pump down procedure complete
Once checklists are complete, the pod will be manually placed in the READY TO LAUNCH state and the countdown
will commence.

D. Ready-To-Remove Checklist

1. Pod Pre-Removal
• Pod is in the IDLE state
• Pod is returning nominal telemetry
• Confirmation that brakes are engaged
• Confirmation that propulsion valves are closed
• Tube has had ample time to vent excess Nitrogen in the tube from the propulsion system
After the Pre-Removal checklist is complete, the pod is considered safe to approach but not ready for transport. This
is because while the prop tanks are sealed by the triply-redundant control valves, the manual safely valve is not closed.

109
This is why the brakes are still engages, so that any propellant leaks or accidental valve openings don’t cause the pod to
move. Once the manual safety valve is closed, the Pod Removal Checklist can be completed.

2. Pod Removal
• Pod brakes are retracted and re-latched
• Pod is commanded to the power-off state
• Pod can be safely removed

3. SLS Removal
• SLS is in NOMINAL OPERATION state
• SLS spring matrix is discharged
• Tube has had ample time to vent excess Nitrogen in the tube from the propulsion system
• SLS can be safely removed

E. Track to Exit Area

1. Pod
Once again, transport from the track to the exit area will have to occur using the forklift and a custom designed lift
fixture.

2. SLS
The SLS will be removed from the track exactly opposite from how it was put in. The static brake clamps will be
removed and the custom SLS lift fixture will be used in addition to the forklift to remove the sling from the track and out
to the staging area, where it will be transported back to the team’s competition tent.

XII. Stored Energy and Hazardous Materials Usage

A. Batteries
The batteries on both the pod and SLS will be fully charged when loaded into the track. In order to maintain the
health and safety of the pod and SLS, we will be following lithium battery safety guidelines. We would like to follow
the UL2580 standard on Batteries for Use in Electric Vehicles, as it will hopefully be the most applicable. The team
does not currently have access to the standard but we are looking to acquire it.
Safety problems with lithium batteries can be broken down into over charging, over temperature, and mechanical
abuse. As the batteries will not be charging during the run, there is much less risk there. Additionally, the batteries will
be charged using smart chargers that prevent over charging as well as preform cell balancing.

1. Pod
Temperature is a large concern with the batteries as they will be in a vacuum during the summer. However, the pod
batteries will only be used for a short time, and will have over temperature monitoring and protection via the BMS. The
batteries in the pod have LiFePO4 chemistry, which is a more stable chemistry than other lithium rechargeable batteries,
as cobalt is avoided. This lowers the risk of thermal runaway extremely in comparison to other lithium rechargeable
batteries.
The vibration environment for the pod batteries will be intense, however the batteries used are automotive grade,
and are securely housed in order to mitigate mechanical damage.

2. SLS
The sling battery will be running for a longer period, as the sling will be powering the pod during pump down. The
power that the pod will draw is much less than power needed for the motor that will do the spring compression. The
spring compression will draw quite a bit of power, but not for an extended period of time so the temperature of the sling

110
battery should not get too high. There will also be monitoring on the sling battery should the temperature rise outside of
acceptable levels, a fault case will be detected and the sling control and ground station will shut down the sling power.
The risk for mechanical abuse is much lower on the sling than the pod as the batteries on the pod are not moving
down the track and will have less vibration.

B. Pressure Vessels
The pod has two pressure vessels on board, whose hazards can be broken down into categories. Primary sources of
failure are dropping, fire, projectiles, fatigue, and plumbing failures. All of these hazards will be mitigates to the best of
the team’s ability, and the team will consult with competition organizers about specific mitigation plans. More detail
can be found in Section IV.G.7, where the the mitigation plans are discussed in detail.

C. Springs
The springs being utilized on the sling are extremely high-energy when fully extended and primed for launch.
Because of this, the springs aren’t primed until after the hyperloop tube has been sealed. This reduces risks of failure or
injury due to the springs on the sling to near-zero. In the event of a failure within the tube, sling sensors and visual
checks by the team will ensure the sling is in a safe state.

D. Hazardous Materials
The other hazardous materials included on the pod are strong magnets. The halbach arrays used to levitate must be
aligned near perfectly in order to properly lift the pod rather than imparting a large moment on the frame or ruining
electronics. Since the field generated is directional, special care will be taken when handling the magnets as to not
generate an unwanted force or direct it improperly. Additional mitigation plans can be discussed with competition
organizers to ensure personnel remain safe.
Further analysis is being conducted to determine the effect of the halbach arrays on the pod’s electrical components.

XIII. Safety Features

A. Braking Inhibits During Acceleration

1. Hardware
A latched hinge present in the brake assembly inhibits the brakes from deploying during the acceleration phase. A
force of roughly 25 N delivered by a pull-solenoid unlatches the hinge and allows the brakes to deploy. Only one signal is
necessary to deploy these brakes and it is triggered when the top speed is reached or when 900 m of track is first passed.

2. Software
Software inhibits also exist to ensure the latch isn’t released during acceleration. When the pod is in the coast state,
the solenoid controlling the flow of gas out the nozzle is open. During this time, the pod will not apply the brakes
unless commanded by the ground computer, in which case it will first close the propellant solenoid. Once it has been
determined that braking is necessary, the software state will change to braking and the propulsion valves will be closed
as the brakes are deployed. At any time, if there is an observed critical fault (power failure, loss of communication,
navigational failure) the software will command solenoids close and enable the brakes. This is to prevent a pod crash or
loss of control. The system will then be responsive to commands to vent propellant assuming there is power available.
The full State Space Diagram for the control board is contained in Section IV.J.1.

B. Power Loss Mitigation Mechanisms

The power distribution board will monitor the main conversion from sling or battery power to high voltage bus for
current spikes or other fault cases. Additionally, the power distribution board monitors each endpoind DC-DC converter
with a TI INA233 current, voltage, and power monitor that communicates with the power distribution board over I 2 C.
If any one of these endpoint DC-DCs develops a fault condition, the power distribution system will shut down that
endpoint, ideally keeping the fault condition from bringing the rest of the power system into a fault state.

111
C. In the Event of Rapid Tube Pressurization
If a leak occurs in the hyperloop tube, the additional pressure within the test track will cause additional drag on the
pod. The pod shell is designed to withstand these kinds of pressure forces and the run could continue as normal. In this
case, the pod would not reach as high of a speed and the braking algorithm would likely stop the vehicle much earlier
than the required 100 ft from the end of the test track due to additional drag forces.

D. System Fault Tolerance

1. Brakes
There are a total of five sets of brakes along the bottom of the pod, designed for a factor of safety of two. This
means only three sets of springs are required to bring the pod to a stop, making two of the five sets redundant. These
redundant sets can be triggered if another set does not clamp when it should for some reason. This could be caused by
a hinge getting stuck in the latched position due to sloppy manufacturing or failure of a solenoid to operate when prompted.

The team is also looking into the possibility of deploying brakes in stages rather than all at once to bring the pod to
rest in a smoother fashion, with less than 10 kN being applied in an instant. This will put less stress on the electronic
components and frame if handled in this way, but will consume a larger portion of track. A future trade study will
determine if braking in stages is a worthwhile design change to implement.

2. Levitation
Failure of the levitation skis would result in the pod tipping towards the failed ski. In this case, additional load
would be put on the track fixture mechanism, but since the factor of safety on those parts are over 300, catastrophic
failure in this failure mode is unlikely. Additionally, the ski wheels can take whatever load the maglev systems are
unable to provide.

3. Power Systems
The power system on the pod will be managed by a COTS battery management system. This system will report
telemetry on the battery’s voltage and current output. Additionally, the control board will be collecting temperature data
from an attached thermistor. For this system, thermal runnaway of the batteries is extremely unlikely. Peak current will
be attained for only fractions of a second and the nominal current draw will be very low. However, if the temperature in
the batteries does reach unsafe levels, the control board will register a fault. In case of power loss, the control board’s
microcontroller has built in brown out detection. This brownout will be used to safe systems as best as possible. The
correct method will determine the best state in which to safe the vehicle.

4. Control Systems
The control system itself is a simple piece of hardware. It is built with fusing to prevent unexpected spikes in current.
It has a brown out detection feature, which shall be used to safe the microcontroller and the surrounding systems in case
of power loss. One of these safings involves a local EEPROM which will be used to save an error code so the vehicle
can start up in a fault state if necessary. If the control board fails unexpectedly in any other way, its enable signals to
endpoint units will be pulled low and power will be passively disabled. This is to reduce the power drain on the batteries
to allow for possible microcontroller restart.

5. Propulsion
Failures in the propulsion system are either fairly benign (where the end result is an aborted test) or catastrophic.
The catastrophic failures are mitigated in every way possible by using certified tanks and following strict transportation,
storage, and use guidelines for pressure vessels. Any additional guidelines put in place by competition organizers or
suggestion by industry professionals consulted by CU Hyperloop will be takes extremely seriously and implemented to
the fullest extent possible.
The benign failures are those resulting from improper or inconsistent sensor readings, failures of the propulsion
plumbing system, or failures of the nozzle.
Sensor readings will be investigated by the team and launch would not occur in circumstances where doing so

112
presents unnecessary risk. Tests will be aborted in these cases. Failures in the plumbing system would likely be from
leads at connections. The plumbing system undergoes extensive leak testing prior to flight, so the likelihood of leaks
occurring in the plumbing is unlikely. Nonetheless, the system could experience leaks as a result of environmental
factors and in such cases, the result would either be a loss of tank pressure over time or large off-center thrust loads.
Neither of these failure modes result in catastrophic failures (in the case of the leak, top speed is simply reduced. In the
case of off-center thrust, the aforementioned fixture mechanism will stabilize the pod along the center rail).

E. Single Points of Failure

1. Pod
Propulsion: The only single point of failure on the propulsion system is the propulsion tank itself. All electronic
valves work in pairs.
Braking: The braking system uses a singular solenoid to pull the hinge on each brake assembly. This represents a
single point of failure in each brake assembly, but there are a total of 10 brake assemblies, and only 6 would be required
to fully stop from full speed.
Levitation: The failure of a single levitation ski would likely result in the pod hovering in an unbalanced way.
However, the fixture mechanism and the ski wheels are both designed to accommodate failures of the maglev systems
and keep the pod rolling and aligned with the track.

F. Recovery Plan
The pod recovery plan will begin with completion of the checklists described in Section XI. Then the pod will be
rolled out of the tube by hand and loaded onto the forklift using the lift fixture.
The sling will be removed exactly opposite to how it was loaded in.
Further details can be found in the Checklist section in Section XI.

G. Manual Pod-Stop Implementation

Upon receiving the pod stop command from the team ground station, the pod is immediately commanded into the
FAULT state. This engages the brakes and disables all other pod systems except critical sensors and telemetry. Further
details of the pod states can be found in Section ??.

XIV. Vacuum Compatibility Analysis

All required components are being procured with vacuum environments in mind. Where possible, CU Hyperloop is
working with vendors to ensure parts are vacuum compatible. Component level vacuum testing will occur on assemblies
which contain parts that we could not confirm were vacuum compatible, and extensive proof-of-life testing will ensure
that these assembles are compliant.
As of the date of submission of this report, CU Hyperloop is not concerned about compatibility of any parts of their
pod in a vacuum.

XV. Major Modifications from the 2018 Season

A. Mechanical
Mechanical systems have been completely redesigned, starting from the frame of the pod. Rather than an extruded
aluminum sub-frame, the 2019 design utilizes a single-piece composite sandwich made up of aluminum honeycomb
core and carbon fiber. The fixture mechanism has been redesigned to be more robust and better tolerate track steps and
gaps, as well as accommodating variations in ground clearance due to maglev systems.
The brakes also got a strong redesign with the implementation of a more passive mechanism, a spring loaded latch,
to ensure brakes deploy even in power loss situations. Additionally, they have now been angled back in order to reduce
the bending moment they undergo due to the friction from braking.

113
B. Electrical
The electrical system was almost entirely redesigned for this year’s competition. The major changes include
upgrading from a simple TI-launchpad to a custom control board for the main control board, a high voltage power
distribution system for less power loss compared to a battery voltage power distribution system, new battery and BMS,
and the new required radio and stripe counting systems.

C. Propulsion
While the premise behind the propulsion system is the same as the 2018 design, this year, the implementation has
changed significantly. A nozzle optimized for the test conditions has been designed and additional safety valves were
added in the plumbing system to reduce the likelihood of accidental thrust.
Most significantly, the team has opted to use a single large COPV rather than multiple smaller ones. This simplifies
the plumbing significantly and also represents an efficiency increase due to the increased volume:mass ratio. It also
simplifies propulsion timing, as now there is no need to worry about off-center thrust from valves not opening at the
same time.

D. Aerodynamics
The airfoil shell from the 2018 design has been dropped due to the difficulty of modeling the lift generated on
the airfoil across varying speeds. Instead, a mode simple modified pill shape was chosen to ease manufacturing and
maximize usable volume while still keeping mass low.

E. Levitation
The levitation system is completely new this year, and similar systems have not been implemented into designs by
CU Hyperloop in the past. The progress that the levitation team is making with regards to prototyping and scaled testing
are exciting and helping to validate the full scale mathematical models.

F. Computer Modeling
This year, a much heavier focus was placed on modeling pod systems on the computer to have a better understanding
on how they might work in real life. This year’s propulsion model is much higher fidelity than past models. Additionally,
more detailed structural modeling, including full vibration analysis, was performed on the majority of pod components,
and a full top level model for vibration is being developed to be run on a university supercomputer. The levitation
subsystem, new this year, has also been modeled and further modeling efforts are going towards increasing the fidelity
of that model.
These simulations are being run early and refined throughout the design process. This allows them to be driving
design decisions, like the material selection and part geometries, in order to optimize performance and mass.

G. SLS
The SLS got a major design change this year with the replacement of the motor-winch mechanism to a spring
energy storage mechanism. This increased the theoretical boost velocity from 13.4 m/s to 21 m/s, nearly doubling its
effectiveness.

114
 References
[1] Newlands, R., “The Thrust Optimised Parabolic nozzle,” Aspire Space, 2017.

[2] Braeunig, R. A., “ROCKET PROPULSION,” Braeunig, 2012.

[3] Taranovich, S., “SpaceX Hyperloop Pod Competition: design from creative young minds, Part 1,” EDN Network, 2017.

[4] Magnetics, K., “https://www.kjmagnetics.com/blog.asp?p=halbach-arrays,” Web, Visited 2018.

[5] MIT, “MIT Hyperloop Final Report,” None, 2017.

[6] Flankl, M., “Scaling laws for electrodynamic suspension in high-speed transportation,” IET Journal, 2015.

[7] Various, “MatWeb, Your Source for Materials Information,” Web, Visited 2019.

115