Aqua Scooter Final Presentation Dylan Cannon, Darin Gilliam, Eli - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Aqua Scooter Final Presentation Dylan Cannon, Darin Gilliam, Eli Palomares, Elizabeth Tyler, Jiyan Wang, Tyler Winston December 2, 2014

Overview • Objectives • Problem Definition • Engine Analysis • Shell Analysis • Final Considerations • Conclusion • References 2

Project Goal Need Goal • Current Aqua Scooter model • Design an improved Aqua does not meet EPA Scooter that exceeds EPA regulations. regulations. 3

Objectives • Design an aesthetically pleasing Aqua Scooter, that complies with EPA regulations. • The new design should be lightweight and provide similar thrust. • The system must be buoyant and relatively cheap to manufacture. • Must be safe for a child to use. 4

Objectives • Analyze and compare gasoline, propane, and butane 4-stroke engine concepts. • Quantify the ability for each fuel source to meet EPA regulations. • Calculate the drag coefficients for the two final outer shell designs. • Calculate thrust assuming a propeller that will generate a 5mph velocity. 5

Current Model Two- Stroke Engine Exhaust emissions • Used for typically greater • Can’t meet current EPA power to weight ratio. regulations. • Mixed oil and fuel injected • Unburned exhaust emissions into combustion chamber by enter the atmosphere. carburetor. 6

Constraints • ½ gallon, plastic fuel tank • Plastic prop protection • Internal combustion powered • Control handle included • Metal engine and muffler • Throttle control housing • Exhaust valve • Starter assembly is plastic • Must be 18 pounds or less and metal • Must provide at least 50 pounds thrust 7

Problem Definition • Design a hydrodynamic, inexpensive, aesthetically pleasing Aqua Scooter, with a marine engine that complies with EPA regulations. [1] 8

Gantt Chart Table 1: Gantt Chart and Deliverable schedule. 9

QFD Customer Needs Engineering Requirements Engineering Targets Bench Marks Table 2: QFD matrix relates customer needs and engineering requirements. 10

House of Quality Weight Buoyancy Fuel Capacity Thrust Exhaust Emission Operating Life Warranty Table 3: House of quality correlates engineering requirements. 11

Team Concepts • Boomerang • 2 Propeller • Octopus • 4 Mix Engine • Magneto Hydrodynamic • Enclosed Housing Propulsion System • Adjustable Jet • Propane Injected 4-Stroke • Catalytic Converter and Coil • Duck Scooter • Fuel Injected 2-Stroke • Tank Housing 12

Decision Matrix Requirements and Criteria Minimal Manufacture Complexity Probability Requirements Hydrodynamic Aesthetically Lightweight Weighted Provides of Design Minimal Materials Ease of Cost of Efficient of Error Pleasing Factor Thrust Total EPA Requirement Weighting 10% 10% 10% 20% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 100% 7 6 5 7 5 7.5 8 8 6 Boomerang 6.65 0.7 0.6 0.5 1.4 0.5 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.75 6 3 4 7 4 5 8 6 6 Octopus 5.6 0.6 0.3 0.4 1.4 0.4 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.5 5 3 3 7 2.5 3 Magnetohydrodynamic 9 6 4 4.95 propulsion 0.5 0.3 0.3 1.4 0.25 0.9 0.6 0.4 0.3 7 7 7 8 7 5 5.5 7 6 Propane injected 4 stroke 6.75 0.7 0.7 0.7 1.6 0.7 0.55 0.7 0.6 0.5 8 6 6 6 6 5 7.5 5.5 6 Duck Scooter 6.2 0.8 0.6 0.6 1.2 0.6 0.75 0.55 0.6 0.5 8 6 6 7.5 5 6 8.5 7 5.5 2 Propeller 6.7 0.8 0.6 0.6 1.5 0.5 0.85 0.7 0.55 0.6 6.5 7 8 8.5 7 5 9 7 6 4 Mix Engine 7.25 0.65 0.7 0.8 1.7 0.7 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.5 7.5 8 6 7 5 5 9 7 6 Enclosed Housing 6.75 0.75 0.8 0.6 1.4 0.5 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.5 7 6 6 8 6 6.5 8 8 6 Adjustable Jet 6.95 0.7 0.6 0.6 1.6 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.65 6 5.5 5 8 5 5 7 6.5 7 Catalytic Converter and Coil 6.3 0.6 0.55 0.5 1.6 0.5 0.7 0.65 0.7 0.5 7 5.5 5 8 5 9 7 7.5 4 Fuel Injected 2 Stroke 6.6 0.7 0.55 0.5 1.6 0.5 0.9 0.7 0.75 0.4 7.5 5.5 6 6 5.75 5.5 9 7.5 7 Tank Housing 6.575 0.75 0.55 0.6 1.2 0.575 0.9 0.75 0.7 0.55 13

Criteria • Aesthetically Pleasing 10% • Minimal Probability of Error 10% • Ease of Manufacture 10% • EPA Regulations 20% • Complexity of Design 10% • Provides Thrust 10% • Hydrodynamically Efficient 10% • Lightweight 10% • Minimal Cost of Materials 10% 14

Top Two Ideas • Boomerang with 4-stroke Propane Engine • Two Propeller with 4-stroke 4-mix Engine with with Adjustable Jet Adjustable Jet 15

Concept Analysis • Gasoline Analysis • Propane Analysis • Butane Analysis • Shell Analysis [12] 16

Gasoline Analysis Dimensions Aqua Scooter 2-Stroke Engine (AS 650) 4-Stroke Engine (Honda GXH50) Length (mm) 530 225 Width (mm) 195 274 Height (mm) 320 353 Weight (lb) 16.53 12.1 Bore (mm) 40 41.8 Stroke (mm) 39 36 Displacement (cc) 49 49.4 Power (HP) 2 2.1 @ 7000rpm Thrust (kg) 22 22 Mixture Unleaded 87 Octane or Higher Fuel 2 1.89271 Fuel Tank Capacity (L) Price ($) (+/-) 970 420 [1] [2] 17

Propane and Butane Analysis • Assumptions • Calculated using Honda GXH50 converted to propane or butane. • Running time of 3 hours. • Not Adjusted for Efficiency. • Results • Calculated weight of propane is 12.52 ounces. • Calculated weight of butane is 12.50 ounces. 18

Velocity Based on Thrust Calculations Variable Values 𝑛 • 𝑈 = 𝑛𝑊 𝑓 − 𝑛𝑊 • 𝑊 𝑓 = 2.235 𝑝 𝑡 4.448𝑂 • 𝑈 = 50𝑚𝑐𝑔 ∗ 1 𝑚𝑐𝑔 = 222 [𝑂] • 𝑛 = 𝜍𝑊 𝑗 𝐵 • 𝐵 = 0.0324 [𝑛 2 ] 2 • 𝑈 = 2𝜍𝐵𝑊 • 𝑒𝑗𝑏𝑛𝑓𝑢𝑓𝑠 = 8𝑗𝑜 = .2032𝑛 𝑗 • 𝑈 = 𝜍𝑊 𝑗 𝐵(𝑊 𝑓 − 𝑊 0 ) 19

Chemical Calculations Propane Stoichiometry • C 3 H 8 +5O 2 +18.8N 2 →3CO 2 +4H 2 O+18.8N 2 Butane Stoichiometry • C 4 H 10 +9O 2 +33.84N 2 →4CO 2 +10H 2 O+33.84N 2 20

Air Fuel Ratio Calculations AF Ratio for 87 Octane is 15:1 AF Ratio for Propane AF Ratio for Butane • 𝑁 𝑏𝑗𝑠 = 28.97 • 𝑁 𝑏𝑗𝑠 = 28.97 • 𝑁 𝑐𝑣𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑓 = 58.12 • 𝑁 𝑞𝑠𝑝𝑞𝑏𝑜𝑓 = 44.09 28.97 • 𝐵𝐺 𝑐𝑣𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑓 = 5 + 33.84 ∗ 28.97 • 𝐵𝐺 𝑞𝑠𝑝𝑞𝑏𝑜𝑓 = 5 + 18.8 ∗ 58.12 44.09 𝑚𝑐 𝑏𝑗𝑠 • 𝐵𝐺 𝑐𝑣𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑓 = 21.36 𝑚𝑐 𝑐𝑣𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑓 : 1 𝑚𝑐 𝑏𝑗𝑠 • 𝐵𝐺 𝑞𝑠𝑝𝑞𝑏𝑜𝑓 = 15.66 𝑚𝑐 𝑞𝑠𝑝𝑞𝑏𝑜𝑓 ∶ 1 21

Shell Analysis Drag Force 𝐺 = 0.5𝜍𝑊 2 𝐷 𝑒 𝐵 Where: 𝐺 = 𝐸𝑠𝑏𝑕 𝑔𝑝𝑠𝑑𝑓 𝑂 𝑙𝑕 𝜍 = 𝐸𝑓𝑜𝑡𝑗𝑢𝑧 𝑛 3 𝑊 = 𝑊𝑓𝑚𝑝𝑑𝑗𝑢𝑧 𝑛 𝑡 𝐷 𝑒 = 𝐸𝑠𝑏𝑕 𝐷𝑝𝑓𝑔𝑔𝑗𝑑𝑗𝑓𝑜𝑢 [unitless] 𝐵 = 𝐵𝑠𝑓𝑏 𝑝𝑠𝑢ℎ𝑝𝑕𝑝𝑜𝑏𝑚 𝑢𝑝 𝑔𝑚𝑝𝑥 [𝑛 2 ] [3] 22

Shell Analysis- Boomerang • Assumptions • 𝐷 𝑒 = 0.5 • 𝐵 = 1106.3𝑗𝑜 2 = 0.714𝑛 2 𝑙𝑕 • 𝜍 = 999 𝑛 3 𝑛 • 𝑊 𝑓 = 2.235 𝑡 • Drag Force • 𝐺 = 0.5𝜍𝑊 2 𝐷 𝑒 𝐵 2.235 2 (.5)(0.714) • 𝐺 = 0.5 999 • 𝐺 = 890.75 𝑂 23

Shell Analysis- Triton • Assumptions • 𝐷 𝑒 = 0.10 • 𝐵 = 513.20𝑗𝑜 2 = 0.3311𝑛 2 𝑙𝑕 • 𝜍 = 999 𝑛 3 𝑛 • 𝑊 𝑓 = 2.235 𝑡 • Drag Force • 𝐺 = 0.5𝜍𝑊 2 𝐷 𝑒 𝐵 2.235 2 (.1)(0.3311) • 𝐺 = 0.5 999 • 𝐺 = 82. 6𝑂 24

Power Calculation 𝑛 • 𝑊 𝑓 = 2.235 𝑡 • 𝒬 𝑒 = 𝑮 𝑒 ⋅ 𝒘 = 1 2 𝜍𝑤 3 𝐵𝐷 𝑒 • 𝒬 𝑒(𝑐𝑝𝑝𝑛𝑓𝑠𝑏𝑜𝑕) = 1990.82𝑋 = 2.669ℎ𝑞 • 𝒬 𝑒(𝑈𝑠𝑗𝑢𝑝𝑜) = 184.611𝑋 = 0.2475ℎ𝑞 25

Final Concept Considerations • Conversion Kits • Emission Testing • Portable Devices • On-Site Testing • 2-Stroke Engines • Testing Environment • 4-Stroke Engines • Cost of Materials 26

Conversion Kits: Butane and Propane • Alt Fuel • Propane Carbs • Regulators • Spud-In Conversion System • Fuel Line • Fuel Tube • Regulator • Attachment Line • Vacuum Idle Needle • Intake Adaptor • Bracket for Tank 27

Husqvarna 2-Stroke Engine • $169.00 • 9.7lbs Full Dry Weight • 28cc Displacement • 68.5 g/kWh [16] 28

Tanaka Two-Stroke Engine • $200.00 • 1.3HP • 11lbs [17] 29

Briggs & Stratton 4-Stroke • $ 199.00 • 1-HP • 40cc Displacement • 8lbs Dry Weight [18] 30

Honda GX-25 4-Stroke Engine • $240.00 • 1-HP • 25cc Displacement • 6.8lbs Dry Weight [19] 31

Emissions Testing On Location Testing Portable Emissions • Carnot emission services 210- • Enerac-500-102 928-1724 • $870.00 • Gary • $5000.00 • Olson-Ecologic Engine Testing Laboratories 714-774-3385. • David Olson • Currently Researching How to Test • Deer Valley Emissions Test • 501West Deer Valley Road, Phoenix, AZ 85027 32

Campus Testing Environment • 150 Gallon Tank • $175.00 • Check with Biology • Trough Pool • $104.00 • Used stores • Craigslist [1],[13] 33