1 / 31

Team 7 - Project 99.07

Experimental Silo Packer. Team 7 - Project 99.07. Team Members: J. M. T ate, J. A cheson, P. S ullivan, and A. A bumohor Advisor: Dr. J. Glancey Sponsor: Dr. Limin Kung. Silo Background. Problem. Summary Chart.

teige
Download Presentation

Team 7 - Project 99.07

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. Experimental Silo Packer Team 7 - Project 99.07 Team Members: J. M. Tate, J. Acheson, P. Sullivan, and A. Abumohor Advisor: Dr. J. Glancey Sponsor: Dr. Limin Kung

  2. Silo Background

  3. Problem

  4. Summary Chart Mission: The purpose of our team is to design and build a means to quickly and reproducibly load a test silo without requiring extensive manpower. Approach: We will use the Total Quality Design Process, through the SpreadSheet Design Process on Microsoft Excel.

  5. Academic Dr. Limin Kung Dr. Martin Stokes Dr. Joseph Harrison Industrial Mr. Chris Rhoden Ms. Carol Myers Customers • Agricultural • Mr. Richard Morris

  6. Wants: 1-5 1) Reproduce Desired Results 2) Not Physically Demanding 3) Fast Operation 4) Simple Operation for User 5) Low Cost

  7. Wants: 6-10 6) Easy to Clean 7) Easy to Repair 8) Easily Transportable 9) Variable Silo Size 10) Easy to Store

  8. Constraints The apparatus should be able to: 1) Pass though a doorway 2) Be moved by 2 people 3) Pack faster than Kung’s methods 4) Give a proper sink distance 5) Be built for under $500

  9. System Benchmarking • Stoke’s Pneumatic Loader • Trash Compactors • Shotshell Loaders • Pharmaceutical Capsule Filling Machines • Dr. Kung’s Packing Methods Main Competitor: Stoke’s Pneumatic Loader

  10. Functional Benchmarking Functions: • Compacting Devices • Material Transport • Container Transport • Pressure and Load Sensors • User-Interface Controllers

  11. Functional Benchmarking Best Practices: • Pneumatic Piston Compactor • Screw Feeder Silage Transporter • Conveyor Belt Silo Transporter • Piezoelectric Pressure Sensor • Foot Switch Controller

  12. Metrics: 1 to 5 Metric Want Number if Users Simple Operation Pressure per Layer Change in Pressure Reproduce Desired Results Per Layer Operating Force Not Demanding Total Cost Low Cost

  13. Metrics: 6 to 9 Metric Want Total Time to Fill Fast Operation Storage Volume Easy to Store or Transport Number of Silo Sizes Variable Silo Sizes Weight Easy to Transport

  14. Concept Generation Extrusion Family Straight Extruder Tapered Extruder

  15. Concept Generation Horizontal Piston Family Gravity Fed Piston Hand Fed Piston

  16. Concept Generation Vertical Piston Family Piston with Vibrating Chute Screw Fed Piston Crank Slider

  17. Concept Generation “Other” Design Family Weight Press Centrifuge Blower

  18. Concept Evaluation • Experiments • Types: • Effect of Lips and Sudden Changes in Diameter • Effect of Plunger Size on Packing • Effect of Piston Orientation • Vertical and Horizontal • Silage Behavior on Chutes and in Ramps

  19. Concept Evaluation • Low Rated Concepts • Extruder Family: • Cost metric too high • Lack of experimental data • Horizontal Piston Family: • Change in Pressure Per Layer metric too high • Time to Fill metric is too high • Jamming problems inherent in the design

  20. Concept Evaluation • Low Rated Concepts • “Other” Family: • Pressure target is not met • Dimensions outside of constraints • Weight outside of constraints

  21. Concept Evaluation • Vertical Piston Family: • High Scoring Metrics: • Pressure per layer • Change in Pressure per Layer • Time to Fill

  22. Vertical Piston Family Screw Fed Piston Evaluation: User Actions is low Time to Fill is low Cost of Screw Feeder is too high

  23. Vertical Piston Family Piston with Vibrating Chute Evaluation: Clogging problems increase time to fill Cost metric is too high

  24. Vertical Piston Family Crank Slider Evaluation: Time to Fill is good. Low Cost User Actions is high.

  25. Final Concept Evaluation: Time to Fill is good. Low Cost User Actions are high, but can be split up between multiple users.

  26. Testing Procedure • Final Weight and Storage Volume • Time Trials • Different Users • Multiple Users • Trials at Varying Packing Pressures • Operating Force • Comparisons with the Previous Apparatus

  27. Testing Results Metric Measurement Target Number of Users 2 2 Pressure per Layer 100 psi 100 psi Change in Pressure 5 psi 30 psi Per Layer Operating Force 5 lbs. 20 lbs. Total Cost $436 $500

  28. Testing Results Metric Measurement Target Time to Fill 80 sec 80sec Storage Volume 9 ft3 36 ft3 Number of Silo 1 2 Sizes Weight 42 lbs 88 lbs

  29. Final Prototype

  30. Development Statistics Activity Time Engineering Development 360 hours Fabrication Hours 60 hours Testing Hours 10 hours

  31. Budget PART PRICE $ Pneumatic Cylinder 230 Regulator and Valves 47 Electrical Systems 21 Frame and Fasteners 40 Silo Extensions 98 TOTAL $436

More Related