Download
1 / 31
310 likes | 396 Views
Gravity Fed System. Team Members: J ames Brinkerhoff, Christopher Kulbago, Patrick O’Connell, Lauren Pahls, Ted Rakiewicz, Sarah Salmon Group Number: P13631. Table of Contents. Team Roles Project Background Schedule MSD II High Level Customer Needs Budget and Costs Bill of Materials
E N D
Gravity Fed System Team Members: James Brinkerhoff, Christopher Kulbago, Patrick O’Connell, Lauren Pahls, Ted Rakiewicz, Sarah Salmon Group Number: P13631
Table of Contents • Team Roles • Project Background • Schedule MSD II • High Level Customer Needs • Budget and Costs • Bill of Materials • Engineering Specifications • Concept Generation • Feasibility Analysis • Original System Architecture • Original P&ID • Original Cart Layout • MSD I vs. MSD II Comparison • Final P&ID • Final Cart Layout • Test Results Data • Labview Layout • Risk Assessment • Successes and Failures • Issues and Actions MSD I • Issues and Actions MSD II • Questions
Team Roles • Chris Kulbago- Project Manager • James Brinkerhoff- Lead Engineer • Lauren Pahls- Fluids Specialist • Sarah Salmon- Group Facilitator • Patrick O’Connell- Lead Mechanical • Ted Rakiewicz- Lead Electrical
Project Background • Task Demonstrate process control in a lab environment using a gravity fed loop with a control valvewith an existing flow cart as reference. • Customer and Sponsor RIT’s Chemical Engineering Department • Other Support Kodak’s Steve Possanza was our guide through this process. Kodak also donated old parts to make our cart fully functional. • Product Stakeholders Students who will use the machine, the Department, Dr. Sanchez, Dr. Richter, and staff who will maintain the machine. • Collaboration Two other groups are designing similar process control machines whose aesthetic appearances must match ours.
Customer Needs • Did we meet them?
High Level Customer Needs • Machine Design Needs: • A way for students to manually manipulate flow. • A way to manually measure flow. • Easily operated by 3 students. • A safely operating machine. • Interface of machine with LabVIEW. • A way to demonstrate main concepts of process control. • A way to demonstrate noise and time lag in sensors. • Student Learning Needs: • A lab manual that guides students through lab in a way that engenders learning. • Discussion questions within lab manual that test understanding of process control. • Lab manual that focuses on PID control, noise, filtration, data modeling, disturbances, and/or hysteresis.
Bill of Materials • Grouping of items: • Items were first divided into three main subsections: • 1. Donated by Kodak • 2. Donated by RIT • 3. Bought ourselves • Items purchased were further divided: • 1. Cart construction equipment • 2. Electrical equipment • 3. Miscellaneous Lowe’s items • Dimensions, part numbers, price, location, and arrival were all listed to better inform team of item status. • Budget was tracked by entering an estimated cost for items not yet purchased and confirming the cost when the items arrived. • Our bill of materials is very large and can be viewed on our Edge site.
Engineering Specifications • In order to complete the project, the group had to translate customer needs into technical specifications. • How well the group did in staying within the 19 specifications is summarized below:
Contingency Plan for Assumed Specification • Contact 4th year Chemical Engineering students to test cart. • Conduct time and operation trials on all contacted persons with cart and lab manual.
Feasibility Analysis • Line pressure confirmation • With one faucet received around 50 psi • With all faucets on decreased to about 45 psi
Successes & Failures • Successes • Cart is aesthetically constructed, and highly functional. • LabVIEW provides accurate data collection and adequately allows for student interaction for real-time process control of a dynamic system. • Group overcame an equipment failure, and adapted to prevent project hindrance. • Project is under budget. • All deliverables submitted on time. • Failures • Digital-to-Analog Converter operation is deviated from design intent (as of right now). • Cart water usage is not optimized.
Issues/Actions MSD I • Gravity fed to line feed • We initially were going to have a project that was “gravity fed to a line feed,” where we had a permanent height for a gravity feed stream. • Instead of this, we decided to use a second control loop and set of code in order to be able to be more versatile and mimic different heights with different water pressures from a water line. • Coordinating cart purchase • We discussed a cart design that fits the needs of all three groups. • After negotiating, we came up with a final cart to be used by all three groups. • Slow start to project • Edge was not readily available for students at the start of MSD I. • The lab learning portion was in progress
Issues/Actions MSD II • Misinterpreted Pressure Loss • Water pressure loss across flow tube was greater than calculated, and therefore the water flow rate out in preliminary testing was too low. • We rearranged the cart layout to use potential energy to make our cart drain at the required flow rate. • Delicate Level Transmitter • The original mounting design for the level transmitter damaged it. After mounting, it gave erroneous readings. • A new level transmitter was rush delivered and mounted with electrical tape. Special handling instructions were noted in manual. • Interface Issues • The equipment given to us by Kodak was very used and worn. At first, we did not know how to properly control the 2 I/P circuits, preventing control valve operation. • Through rigorous testing, this problem was solved and our I/P’s are now fully functional as anticipated.
Future Suggestions • Recycle Loop • Install a pump with a recycle stream and an additional tank or vessel in order to reduce water usage. • Time Study • Have 4th year Chemical Engineering students perform the lab procedure and measure time it takes for students to complete the lab. • Switch Microcontroller • Replace the msp430 Microcontroller with a more reliable National Instruments Data Acquisition for increased accuracy, ease of assemblyand use. • Newer and More Robust Parts • The Level Transmitter we purchased was low in cost but carries a risk. A differential pressure cell would minimize this risk. • Parts donated by Kodak are used and worn, and if these are replaced the robustness of the cart can improve.
