W IND –2– H 2 O MECH 4020 : Design II Group 12: Jeffrey Allen

1. WIND –2– H2O MECH 4020: Design II Group 12: Jeffrey Allen Daniel Barker Andrew Hildebrand Tom McDonald Supervised by: Dr. Alex Kalamkarov Client: Dr. Graham Gagnon

2. Presentation Agenda • Background • Design Overview • Design Modifications • Testing • Budget • Design Requirements 2

3. Design Competition Project inspired by theme of 2008 Design Competition posed by WERC: A Consortium for Environmental Education and Technology Development Competition held at New Mexico State University April 5th – 8th Competition Design Challenge Design a device that uses wind power to directly power the filtration of brackish water i.e. no generation of electricity

4. Interdisciplinary Collaboration Working with a team of two Civil Engineering students: Matt Follett Dannica Switzer Responsible for water treatment system

5. December 2008 Design

6. January 2009 Update 6

7. Completed Windmill 7

8. Design Overview

9. Design Overview - Blades • Clockwise rotation • Blade tip deflection • Light weight (Al 5052-H32) • Safety factor of at least 10 for centrifugal forces • Optimize performance for low winds (3-6 m/s) • Solidity ratio of 80% • 10 degree averaged angle of attack

10. Design Overview – Blade Attachment

11. Design Overview - Hub

12. Design Overview - Gearbox

13. Design Overview - Gearbox • 1” diameter shafts • 1010 steel for rotor shaft, 4140 steel for geared shafts • Maintain a safety factor of at least 5 (keyways, variable loads) • Stress analysis - torsion, bending, buckling, • Vibration – critical speed • Deflection – spacing between bearings

14. Design Overview - Gearbox • System meets or exceeds ANSI B29-1 - Precision Power Transmission Roller Chains, Attachments, and Sprockets

15. Design Overview – Crank Mechanism • 3 inch stroke length • Brass bushings used to allow for relative motion between shaft and crank arm • Cotter pins prevent crank arms from slipping off ends

16. Design Overview – Pump Block • Crank arm drives pump block up and down • No relative motion between vertical shafts and pump block due to split pin (better for seal) • Two ½” shafts constrain lateral motion through two brass sleeve bearings

17. Design Overview – Yaw Bearing • Lazy susan bearing rated for 1000 lbs. used to yaw the nacelle

18. Design Overview – Pump • Brass pipe with two check valves • Leather seals provide seal between valves and pump wall

19. Design Overview – Stand • Stand inherited from Vertical Axis Wind Turbine 2005/2006

20. Design Overview – Overspeed Protection • Furling at 11 m/s • Thrust force on blades • Force on Tail • Offset angles

21. Design Modifications

22. Design Iteration – Flange Thrust Bearing • THRUST BEARING • Added to stop pump rod from unthreading itself during yaw motion • Transmits tension and compression along pump rod, while providing zero torque • Consists of a rigid flanged housing welded to the upper pump rod with two sets of tapered roller bearings press fit into it • Lower pump rod locates onto roller bearings via a welded collar and tensioning nut

23. Design Iteration – Brass Pressure Seal Cap • Design Considerations • SEAL CAP • Added to provide a pressure seal at interface of pump rod and pump • Consists of a brass cap with pipe threading that has seated in it a rubber wiper to prevent dirt from entering the pump, and a rubber seal

24. Design Iteration – Stainless Steal Pump Rod • Design Considerations • STAINLESS STEEL PUMP ROD • Originally made of steel, which was rusting • Replaced with a stainless steel pump rod to resist corrosion

25. Testing/Results

26. Testing • Test #1: Point Pleasant Park • Unstable back pressure (butterfly valve) • Wind speed ~4 m/s • Proof of concept test • No data recorded

27. Testing • Test #2: Dalhousie Wind Tunnel Lab • Air flow: 42” box fan • Wind speed ~4.5 m/s • Filters couldn’t handle high flow rate • Unstable back pressure (butterfly valve) • Civil students were able to reduce particulate in sample from >6000 ppm to <150ppm 97.5% particulate removed!

28. Testing

29. Testing • Test #3: Lawrencetown Beach • Wind speed ~ 5.5 m/s gusting to 9 m/s • 75 psi pressure relief valve generates back pressure • Wind speed taken every 5 seconds • Volume water taken every minute • Wind speed nearly constant over rotor face

34. Results • Average back pressure taken as 80 psi • Able to determine efficiency based on theoretical kinetic energy of wind flux

35. Testing • Optimum efficiency occurred near 4.7 m/s

36. Testing • RPM optimized (steepest slope) around 5.3 m/s • RPM is concave down above 5.3 m/s

37. Testing • Turbine performed better than anticipated • Flow rates approximately 50% higher than expected

38. Testing • Test #4: Wind Tunnel Lab • Three wind speeds (low, medium, high) • 30 psi relief valve added • Flow rates recorded at 0, 35, and 75 psi • Volume water taken every two minutes • Air flow highly complex, uneven over rotor face • Analogous wind speed undeterminable

40. Testing • Curve becomes more linear as wind speed increases • Demonstrates higher flow rates at higher wind speeds

41. Safety - Hierarchy of Control

42. Budget

43. Budget

44. Design Requirements

45. Design Requirements

46. Design Requirements

47. Design Requirements

48. Acknowledgements • Dr. Joshua Leon • Dr. Graham Gagnon • Dr. Alexander Kalamkarov • Dr. Julio Militzer