Water Flow Uniformity Test System Final Design Presentation
Team Members Jonathan Cook Perla Garcia Andrew Benson MECH MECH MECH Jason Haldane Mike Rasmussen MECH MECA
Project Support � FAFCO (Sponsor) � Mike Rubio (Technical Contact) � Greg Kallio (Advisor)
Problem/ Need Problem � Joining header and tube array leads to obstructed tubes. � Leads to a non uniform water flow in panel � Reduces efficiency of panel � Quality control is destructive and inefficient testing process Need � Nondestructive, fast quality check procedure Function of device � Accurately measure the flow rate inside each individual tube. � To determine the number and severity of obstructed tubes.
Specifications Requirement Engineering Units Target Should do/ Must Quantitative Specification du/ Would be nice Accurate Flow rate GPM ±.0008 Must do Quantitative measurement GPM/tube Resolution Area Sq Meters 9 sq mm Must do Quantitative Complete Time Minutes < 10 Should do Quantitative testing quickly minutes Repeatability Precision Unit less ±5% Must do Quantitative Requirement Qualitative Must do/ Should do/ Would be nice Test opaque tubes Qualitative Must do non-intrusively Accommodate two Qualitative Must do standard panel sizes Automated Qualitative Would be nice measurement
Design Solution
Engineering Analysis Tsn = Surface temperature T∞ = Ambient temperature T s n − T ∞ [ ] − α ( x n − x n + 1 ) Xn= Distance between IR sensors ) = e ( T s n+1 − T ∞ Tmn = inside temperature Rtotal = Total resistance ] + T ∞ ( ) e [ − α ( x n ) T m n = T m i − T ∞ Cp= Specific Heat ρ = Density of water α = Cooling decay coefficient • 1 = V V= Volumetric flow rate total C p αρ R ′ Tmi Ts1 Ts2 Ts3 Tm1 Tm2 Tm3 X2 X3
Fabrication Purchased parts: Fabricated parts Temperature sensors Frame structure • • Linear bearings All mounting brackets • • Automation components Carriage • • Design Changes � Frame material change from extruded aluminum to steel � Switch to steel linear bearings
Testing � Calibrate the Heat Transfer Cooling Coefficient of the system Correlation between inside temperature • and outside temperature (R ab ) � Accuracy of the System Comparison between the manually • measured flow rate and the output flow rate of the machine � Repeatability Data was collected from several timed • runs and statistical analysis was performed
Calibration T mi T1 T2 T3 WEIGHT Run (°C) (°C) (°C) (°C) (oz) m* 1 55.9 40.3 39.7 37.7 3.4 0.053125 2 55.3 40.6 40.2 38 2.9 0.045313 3 49.7 38.9 37.9 36.2 4 0.0625 4 49.9 39.1 37.8 36.4 2.8 0.04375 5 51 39.2 39.8 36.6 2.8 0.04375 6 51.3 39.4 38.5 37 2.2 0.034375 7 51.4 39.9 38.2 36.9 2.2 0.034375 Alpha T mn R total R ab /R total R ab 0.081746 54.77179 3.23242 0.455492 1.451269 0.175722 52.50114 0.43392 0.257699 50.09709 0.457506
Accuracy Tube Time Mass V* V* Run # (min) (oz) (Measured) (Calculated) 1 1 1 6.7 0.052 0.017 2 1 2 9.3 0.036 0.014 3 2 2 8.2 0.032 0.019 4 2 2 6.7 0.026 0.005
Repeatability � 6.56% Repeatability Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 0.03 0.025 Flow Rate (GPM) 0.02 0.015 0.01 0.005 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 Tube Number
Did it meet the specs? Requirement Target Should do/ Must du/ Spec Met? Value Tested Would be nice Accurate ±.0008 Must do No Inconclusive measurement GPM/tube Resolution 9 sq mm Must do Yes 5 sq mm Complete testing < 10 minutes Should do Yes 4 Minutes quickly Repeatability ±5% Must do No ±6.56% Requirement Must do/ Should do/ Would be Spec met? nice Test opaque tubes non-intrusively Must do Yes Accommodate two standard panel Must do Yes sizes Automated measurement Would be nice Yes
Final Budget Part Estimated cost Hall effect sensor $21.70 Stepper drive $199.00 Power supply $136.00 I/O device $182.04 Automation direct $86.56 � Sources of funding- Tubing position sensors $87.28 IR sensors $1,451.35 � Industrial Sponsor Frame (Steel) $120.00 Fans $80.00 Bearings $175.00 � Donated labor electronic housing $62.00 hardware $15.00 Sensor opics $150.00 thermocouples $43.28 Carrage $155.11 Total Material cost $2,964 Total Estimated budget for the project Total MECH hours= 2251 Total MECA hours= 481 Estimated total hours for labor 2732 Estimated budget for labor $105,478 Estimated budget for material $2,964 Total Project cost=$108,210
Reflection � Problems encountered: � Frame took a little longer than expected � Positioning of sensing tubes � Water heater � Change of frame material
Suggestions for the future � Further Calibration Required � Recommended Design Changes � Add an additional lead screw � Add a position home sensor � Revised specification � Relax tolerance for accuracy of flow rate
Acknowledgements � FAFCO � Dr. Kallio (advisor) � Tech shop � Members of the team
Questions?
Recommend
More recommend
