1 / 46

Air Quality Monitor

Air Quality Monitor . Jeff Wojtusik Danielle Howe Matthew Knauf. Background. Project began Fall 2012 with P13625 Sarah Brownell - Guide Dr. James Myers – Customer Team was charged with building an air quality monitor with increased functionality over previous models.

donnel
Download Presentation

Air Quality Monitor

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Air Quality Monitor Jeff Wojtusik Danielle Howe Matthew Knauf

  2. Background • Project began Fall 2012 with P13625 • Sarah Brownell - Guide • Dr. James Myers – Customer • Team was charged with building an air quality monitor with increased functionality over previous models. • Previous model was created by Berkeley Air Quality monitoring Group in conjunction with University of California Berkeley. • Known as UCB-PATS

  3. Background: AQM • To improve performance and feasibility, broke project down into 2 similar monitors • Both will monitor temperature, humidity, and PM • First monitor will record CO levels • Second monitor will record NOx and SOx levels

  4. VOC: Customer Needs: AQM • Customer needs: • Primarily need monitor to have functionality of UCB-PATS • Additionally want to monitor CO and humidity

  5. VOC Review: Technical Goals: AQM • Monitor should have all capabilities of the UCB-PATS monitor • Ensure all sensors record continuous data • Increase the battery life • Improve upon UI • Create a monitor which is discrete in subject’s home • Monitor is capable of resisting outside environment, shipping, and installation

  6. Functional Decomposition: AQM

  7. Specifications: AQM

  8. Project Budget: AQM • Previous monitor purchase cost was $435 • $200 of which was labor • This project looks to follow the same path. • Anticipated budget for this project is $500 • Need money to test sensors and purchase additional materials • Includes shipping costs as well.

  9. Feasibility Analysis: Cost and Weight • Team wanted to prove that the monitor would not be so heavy that it could damage a home. • Cost of monitor should be in line with customer needs and specs.

  10. Feasibility Analysis:Power Consump.

  11. Feasibility Analysis:Power Consump.

  12. Feasibility Analysis: Size

  13. VOC: Customer Needs: SOxNOx • Customer Needs same as AQM, just changing what is being monitored • Also needs to be able to record Temperature and Humidity like UCB-Pats monitor

  14. VOE: Differences between AQM and SOxNOx • Functional Decomposition -what needed to be sensed and what data was being recorded are different • Metrics and Specifications-again similar to AQM except for the ranges and types of gases being sensed

  15. Budget: SOxNOx • There is no customer for this project yet, so there is no actual funding • However, for the future the proposed budget seen here shows the major cost of the primary components • High cost items for this project are the SOx and NOx sensors, they are much more pricey than the CO sensors available for the AQM

  16. Feasibility • In order for the project to run a basic feasibility analysis should be done • The major criteria that could pose an issue to the success of this project are: • Size: About the Size of RIT’s P13625 and UCB-PATS Monitors • Weight: Total < 10lbs • Batter y Life: Should last between 5-10 days

  17. Feasibility: Battery Life • A basic power analysis was run to determine battery life • AA batteries are not good enough for the power need for these sensors • 2 sets of 6 C batteries in parallel are needed to obtain a battery life between 5-10 days

  18. Feasibility: Size and Weight • Weight feasibility with all major components came out well below the spec of 10lbs at 3.4lbs • The UCB-PATS Volume was 667 cm3 and the previous AQM was 2630 cm3 • Adding up the volumes and multiplying by a packing factor the volume was within range at 840cm3

  19. Staffing: NOxSOx/AQM • Since the only difference between the two is the type of sensors being used the staff should be the same

  20. Project Background: Lamp Post Monitor • Across the globe there is a growing issue with air quality and its impact upon personal health. • The purpose of this project is to develop a monitor that can visually show bystanders what kind of contaminants they are being exposed to in real time. • Hopefully, by showing people this it might push for a movement to reduce environmental emissions and improve air quality. • Smog in Hong Kong

  21. Voice of Customer • Currently this group is the primary customer, all of the VOC were determined by us. • Similar needs to AQMs, with additional sensors • Rather than focusing on discreteness, monitor needs to be able to withstand outdoor conditions and visually display gas levels

  22. Functional Decomposition

  23. Voice of Customer: Technical Goals • Ensure that monitor has the durability to endure outdoor conditions for extended period of time • Monitor display • Gas levels need to clearly be displayed visually • Monitor records continuous data that can be easily imported to computer by researcher

  24. Metrics and Specs • Four main focuses of specifications: • Sensor technology • Monitor durability • Data collection and storage • Visible display of data

  25. Feasibility • The major criteria that could pose an issue to the success of this project are: • Size: Small enough to be non-obstructively mounted on lamp-post • Weight: Total < 10lbs • Power: Can be powered by traditional 120V, 20A power source • Cost: Project needs to be affordable to MSD department

  26. Budget

  27. Electrical Feasibility

  28. Size and Weight Feasibility

  29. Staffing

  30. Test Chamber Remberto Gutierrez Marc Koehler Arielle Mizov

  31. Voice of Customer • In order to calibrate the Air Quality Monitor a need for a test chamber came about • Needs to expose the AQM to PM2.5 and varying levels of CO • Needs to expose the monitor to varying temperature and humidity levels that compare to Haiti

  32. Basic Test Box • Objective: Test multiple varieties of sensors against each other in a basic container to determine the best sensors for future use. • Possible Solutions: • Glass Box with Integrated "2 in 1" Sensor and Internal Experimental Burning • Concrete Box with 2 Non-Integrated Sensors and Internal Experimental Burning and Matlab Use • Trash Can with 2 Integrated Sensors and Internal Experimental Burning

  33. Budget • The largest cost for this project will be the material for the chambers which will put the project over budget, however they may not need as much material as anticipated

  34. Staffing

  35. Test Chamber with Simple Sensors • Concentrate on developing a test chamber while using simple sensors • Provides data at the end of test of the conditions inside the chamber • Capable of varying CO, PM, temperature, and humidity • Possible Option: • Rise and reduce temperature through a blower and a heater located inside the test chamber

  36. Budget • The largest cost for this project will be the material for the chambers which will put the project over budget, however they may not need as much material as anticipated

  37. Staffing

  38. Integrated Chamber with Improved Interface • Combination of the developed chamber and the best sensors from previous projects • Develop a better interface for the test chamber • Allow the user to manipulate the environment more easily • Output live data and a more comprehensive report of the test • Possible Options: • Computer attached to chamber • Transfer data to/from a computer (not attached)

  39. Budget • The largest cost for this project will be integrating the computer system which greatly increases the cost of the project. The budget will need to increased in order to complete this project.

  40. Staffing

  41. Feasibility Analysis • Determine the Cost for a Test Chamber • Assumptions: We would like a test chamber that is made of stainless steel. We would like the stainless steel to have the following qualities: High temperature and corrosion resistance with low maintenance requirements. Nonmagnetic, with good weldability and formability. Also, something that is frequently used in heat treating, moisture barriers, chemical tanks, heat exchangers, fin stock, chemical equipment, metal stampings, and shim stock. • Alloy 34 seems to be the best type of stainless steel to use. The reason why is because is it 100% recyclable. Alloy 304 is the most widely used stainless alloy. Alloy 309 has better temperature resistance at higher temperatures. Alloy 321 has titanium added for superior corrosion resistance and weldability. • Specifications: Foil Roll, High Temp Foil, Stainless Steel, 309, Thickness 0.002 In, Width 24 In, Length 50 ft, Finish Plain, Temper Soft, Thickness Tolerance +/-0.0002 In, Width Tolerance +/-.010, Length Tolerance +/-1 Linear Foot, Typical Tensile Strength 75, 000 min PSI, Typical Yield Strength 30, 000 min PSI, Standards A240 • Incorporating these specifications, it is approximately $375 and the weight of the stainless steel is about 10 lbs. We were looking for a test that weighs approximately 10-15 lbs and is under $500 so this seems feasible.

  42. Feasibility Analysis • Compute a Simplified Power Summation • Most modern united states circuits are 15 – 20 amps with 120 being the standard number of volts acquired from a power. we are content with anything lower than 2400 W. Power = Current * Voltage (P=IV). *minimum: 1800 W, maximum: 2400 W* • Note: For continuous loads (on for more than three hours), the limit is 20% lower: therefore, there will be 12 – 16 amps with 120 V is there is a load on for more than three hours.*minimum: 1440 W, maximum: 1920 W* • Laptop: • Make & model: Lenovo Thinkcentre m91 w/ Lenovo LCD (purchased early 2012) • Basic specifications: Core i7, 8.0 gb ram, windows 7 professional (clean)off (plugged in): 1 Wboot (peak): 88 Wmoderate use (range): 50 – 68 Wquiescent (5 minutes of no activity): 40Wwsleep: 1 W • Mixing Fan: • Axial Fan, 115VAC, 4-11/16in H, 4-11/16in W: 18 W

  43. Feasibility Analysis • Determine the time of combustion for PM: • 25000ug/m^3 is an ideal value of Particulate matter which requires a 24h operation in the test chamber to correlate result with EPA standards • The table shown above provide a reference to make an estimation on time of combustion process to create the required concentration of PM http://www.ieabcc.nl/publications/Nussbaumer_et_al_IEA_ReportPM10_Jan_2008.pdf

  44. Feasibility Analysis • Determine the time of combustion for CO: • The concentration of CO is 0-2000 ppm. Based on EPA standards and old household detectors limits we might estimate the time of combustion which is 100ppm in 16 min. Concentrations differ as the times varies. The table below shows the different times for which a common CO detector works. http://www.usa829.org/Portals/0/Documents/Health-and-Safety/Safety-Library/Carbon-Monoxide-and-CO-Detectors.pdf

  45. Feasibility Analysis • Determine how long it would take CO and PM to diffuse in the chamber if no mixing were to occur • Assumed the volume the gas needed to fill • Assumed the velocity the gas would be traveling based off of a potential fan that would be used • Determined the flow rate based off of the equation Q = vA • Found that it would take less than a minute to fill the container which is a reasonable time

  46. Questions?

More Related