Brian Church, Anthony Salmin, Tyler Breitung, Ross Bluth, Michael - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

 

Brian Church, Anthony Salmin, Tyler Breitung, Ross Bluth, Michael Oplinger, Stephen Mroz

Week 6 System Level Design Review - 10/2/14

 Background

• Problem Statement
• Customer Requirements
• Engineering Requirements
• House of Quality

 Functional Decomposition  Concept Development  Feasibility Analysis  Risk Assessment  Test Plan  Project Plan Week 6 System Level Design Review - 10/2/14

 Dynamic range of flow of 100:1  No means of flow rate control  Not ready for use in an automotive environment Week 6 System Level Design Review - 10/2/14

 Increase the flow rate accuracy to ± 0.5%  A distribution plate for mixing CNG and air  Smaller and lighter than current prototype  A Proportional-Integral-Derivative (PID) actuator control

algorithm to increase flow rate accuracy

Week 6 System Level Design Review - 10/2/14

 Fully operational prototype that can be tested and verified

with compressed air

 Complete technical design documentation  Comprehensive system operation instruction manual  Documentation of failure modes  Demonstration at Imagine RIT Week 6 System Level Design Review - 10/2/14

 Low cost  Simple installation  Small and lightweight  Design for manufacturability  Electrical/Mechanical packaging for an automotive

environment

Week 6 System Level Design Review - 10/2/14

Week 6 System Level Design Review - 10/2/14

1 3 Constraint Constraint

Week 6 System Level Design Review - 10/2/14

Week 6 System Level Design Review - 10/2/14

Week 6 System Level Design Review - 10/2/14

mass flow rate control

3 1

Week 6 System Level Design Review - 10/2/14

Week 6 System Level Design Review - 10/2/14

Accuracy of position sensor Repeatability of mass flow rate control Number of separate assemblies Operating voltage Usability with different gaseous fuels Dynamic range of flow control Cost of production device Temperature limit Manufacturing labor cost Size envelope Total weight Open/close response time Fuel mixing shape Installation time Compatible engine size Operating life Number of full cycles Shock resistance Vibration resistance Target of Limit Value ± 0.5° ± 5% 2 6-18V Yes 100 to 1 $100 80 °C TBD 86.5 cubic inches 4 lbs 50 ms Vortex TBD 4.7L Difficulty (0=Easy to Accomplish, 10=Extremely Difficult) 7 8 5 1 3 2 9 3 8 6 1 4 2 Max Relationship Value in Column 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 48.6 48.6 77 110 Weight / Importance 187 122 114 110 110 110 150 85.1 52.7 89.2 48.6 36.5 36.5 48.6 12.2 3.1 3.1 4.8 6.9 Relative Weight 11.7 7.6 7.1 6.9 6.9 6.9 9.4 5.3 3.3 5.6 3.1 2.3 2.3 3.1 0.8 3.1 3.1 4.8 6.9

Week 6 System Level Design Review - 10/2/14

Accuracy of mass flow rate control Repeatability of mass flow rate control Leakage rate of device Operating voltage Usability with different gaseous fuels Dynamic range of flow control Cost of production device Number of separate assemblies Temperature limit Size envelope Total weight Open/close response time Fuel mixing shape Compatible engine size Operating life Number of full cycles Shock resistance Vibration resistance Target of Limit Value ± 1% ± 1% 25 cc/min 6-18V Yes 100 to 1 $100 2 80 °C 86.5 cubic inches 4 lbs 50 ms Vortex 4.7L Difficulty (0=Easy to Accomplish, 10=Extremely Difficult) 7 8 7 1 3 2 9 5 3 8 6 1 4 2 Max Relationship Value in Column 9 9 3 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Weight / Importance 223 145 72.6 131 131 131 155 43.5 72.6 72.6 48.4 43.5 14.5 14.5 58.1 58.1 82.3 121 Relative Weight 13.8 9 4.5 8.1 8.1 8.1 9.6 2.7 4.5 4.5 3 2.7 0.9 0.9 3.6 3.6 5.1 7.5

Week 6 System Level Design Review - 10/2/14

 Issues

• How are we going to allocate the flow rate accuracy and response time

between the systems?

 Actions Taken

• Accuracy (± 1%)
• 80% Actuator/Valve
• 10% A/D converter
• 10% Leakage
• Response time (50 ms)
• 80% Mechanical movement
• 20% Computations

 Current Status

• Take allocations into account during detailed design phase

Week 6 System Level Design Review - 10/2/14

Week 6 System Level Design Review - 10/2/14

Week 6 System Level Design Review - 10/2/14

Week 6 System Level Design Review - 10/2/14

Week 6 System Level Design Review - 10/2/14

Week 6 System Level Design Review - 10/2/14

Week 6 System Level Design Review - 10/2/14

Week 6 System Level Design Review - 10/2/14

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 Provide Input/Output Fitting

Barbed Threaded Quick Connect Hose Clamp Compression Welded NONE

2 Measure Temperature

Thermocouple Thermistor Resistance Temperature Pyrometer Infrared Thermometer NONE

3 Measure Throttle Position

Car Computer Potentiometer Laser Ultrasound Infrared Spring NONE

4 Measure Pressure

PC Board Mountable General Purpose Flush Diaphragm NONE

5 Process Signals

Microcontroller Analog Processing NONE

6 Measure Current Position

Potentiometer Laser Ultrasound Infrared Magnetic Pickup NONE

Function Solution

Week 6 System Level Design Review - 10/2/14

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7 Change Position

Cam/Ball Ball Valve Gate Valve Butterfly Valve Rotational Disk Plug Valve NONE

8 Prevent Leaks

O-rings Thread Seal Tape Flexseal Gasket NONE

9 Stop Flow In Emergency

Spring Loaded Backup Power Counterweight Emergency Sealant Magnet NONE

10 Prevent Overheat

Heat Sink Fan Liquid Cool Heat Shield Air Cooling NONE

11 Encase Components

Hard Case Magnetic Force Field Soft Case NONE

12 Deliver Fuel

Distribution Plate Nozzles Nitrous Delivery NONE

Solution Function

Week 6 System Level Design Review - 10/2/14  Four concepts generated

• Prototype
• Modified Prototype
• Cost Effective
• High-Tech (Expensive)

Week 6 System Level Design Review - 10/2/14

Selection Criteria Prototype Modified Prototype Cost Effective Hi-tech Cost

• Size
• Flow Rate Accuracy

+ + +

Flow Rate Repeatability

+ + +

High Temp Resistance

+

• +

Design Complexity

• Sum + 's

3 2 3

Sum 0's

1 1

Sum -'s

2 3 3

Net Score

1

• 1

Rank

1 3 2

Concept D a t u m

Week 6 System Level Design Review - 10/2/14

Selection Criteria Prototype Modified Prototype Cost Effective Hi-tech Cost

+ +

• Size
• Flow Rate Accuracy
• Flow Rate Repeatability
• High Temp Resistance
• +

Design Complexity

+ +

• Sum + 's

2 2 1

Sum 0's

1 1 2

Sum -'s

3 3 3

Net Score

• 1
• 1
• 2

Rank

1 1 2

Concept D a t u m

Week 6 System Level Design Review - 10/2/14

Selection Criteria Prototype Modified Prototype Cost Effective Hi-tech Cost

+

• Size
• Flow Rate Accuracy
• +

+

Flow Rate Repeatability

• +

+

High Temp Resistance

+ +

Design Complexity

+

• Sum + 's

2 3 3

Sum 0's

2

Sum -'s

2 3 3

Net Score Rank

1 1 1

Concept D a t u m

Week 6 System Level Design Review - 10/2/14

Selection Criteria Prototype Modified Prototype Cost Effective Hi-tech Cost

+ + +

Size

+ + +

Flow Rate Accuracy

• Flow Rate Repeatability
• High Temp Resistance
• Design Complexity

+ + +

Sum + 's

3 3 3

Sum 0's

2

Sum -'s

3 1 3

Net Score

2

Rank

2 1 2

Concept D a t u m

 The Modified Prototype was ranked

1st in the Pugh Evaluation

 However, we still have to evaluate

several component alternatives to meet the accuracy and cost deliverables

Optimized Prototype

Week 6 System Level Design Review - 10/2/14

 Question: Will the valve design have an impact on the flow

rate accuracy?

• Ball valve
• Needs to be designed from scratch, low accuracy
• Gate valve
• Needs to be designed from scratch, low accuracy
• Cam/ball
• Already implemented in a prototype, high accuracy
• Rotating disk
• Already implemented in a prototype, high accuracy

Week 6 System Level Design Review - 10/2/14

 Question: Will the valve design have an impact on the flow

rate accuracy?

• Cam/ball
• Snail
• Egg
• Dwell

Snail Egg Dwell Week 6 System Level Design Review - 10/2/14

 Question: Will the valve design have an impact on the flow

rate accuracy?

Week 6 System Level Design Review - 10/2/14 Open Closed

 Question: Will the valve design have an impact on the flow

rate accuracy?

Week 6 System Level Design Review - 10/2/14

 Question: Will the valve design have an impact on the flow

rate accuracy?

• Rotating disk

Open

Closed

Week 6 System Level Design Review - 10/2/14

 Question: Will the valve design have an impact on the flow

rate accuracy?

Week 6 System Level Design Review - 10/2/14

 Question: Will the valve design have an impact on the flow

rate accuracy?

 Answer: Yes!  Current status

• Need to develop equations/models
• Cam profiles
• Slots in rotating disks
• Need to relate angular rotation of actuator to flow rate

Week 6 System Level Design Review - 10/2/14

 Question: Will changes in pressure and temperature affect

the mass flow rate?

• m – Mass flow rate
• A – Area of valve opening
• P – Pressure
• T – Temperature
• γ – Specific Heat Ratio
• R – Gas Constant

Week 6 System Level Design Review - 10/2/14

 Question: Will changes in pressure and temperature affect

the mass flow rate?

• Volume remains constant in chamber
• As temperature increases, pressure

increases due to basic thermodynamics

7.07% > 3.0%

 Answer: Theory shows that we will need pressure and

temperature sensors to have accurate flow.

Week 6 System Level Design Review - 10/2/14

𝑄𝑊 𝑈

1

= 𝑄𝑊 𝑈

2

Pressure Held Constant Temperature Held Constant Both Variable (Realistic) Max percent error without sensors 23.66 6.61 7.07

 Question: Is it feasible to use a thermocouple, RTD, or

thermistor for our temperature measurements?

Part Temperature Range Accuracy Tolerance (res) Thermal Time Constant Cost ($) Type HEL-777-A-U-0

• 55°C ~ 150°C

±0.2% 18 RTD PPG102A6

• 200°C ~ 600°C

±0.15°C ±0.06% 1.2 Sec Nomial 22 RTD TFPT0603L1001DV

• 55°C ~ 150°C

±0.5% 2 Thermister PT103J2

• 80°C ~ 150°C

±0.2°C ±0.2°C 10 sec in still air 3 Thermistor 192-303QET-A01

• 60°C ~ 150°C

±0.2°C 15 sec time constant 9 Thermistor NTCLE203E3103FB0

• 40°C ~ 150°C

±1% 13s (1.7 response time) 1.24 Thermistor MTSS Series T-Type (−200 to 350 °C ) ±1.0 27 Thermocouple TC-T-NPT-G-72 T-Type (−200 to 350 °C ) ±1.0 38 Thermocouple HTTC36 Series T-Type (−200 to 350 °C ) ±1.0 25 Thermocouple

Week 6 System Level Design Review - 10/2/14

 Question: Is it feasible to use a general purpose, flush

diaphragm, or PCB mountable pressure transducer?

Part Accuracy Pressure Range Temperature Range Total error band Cost ($) SSCMAND010BG2A5 ±0.25% 0 ~ 145 PSI

• 40°C ~ 85°C

±2% 45.00 TSCDANN150PGUCV ±0.15% 0 ~ 150 PSI

• 40°C ~ 85°C

32.85 40PC500G2A ±0.2% 0~500 PSI

• 40°C ~ 125°C

48.00 NBPDANN150PGUNV ±0.25% 0~150 PSI

• 40°C ~ 125°C

13.00 M7139-200PG-500000 ±0.25% 200 PSI

• 40°C ~ 125°C

±1% 54.00

Week 6 System Level Design Review - 10/2/14

 Question: Can a microcontroller can be used to control

GMFRC?

• Expecting shock and vibrations over extended period
• Temperatures in engine compartment can reach 85°C
• Needs to read raw sensor data, convert to digital data, determine

necessary actuator position, and control actuator position

• Want ± 1% accuracy
• Actuator needs to go from fully closed to fully open in 50 ms
• Microcontroller costs needs to be within budget

Week 6 System Level Design Review - 10/2/14

 Question: Can a microcontroller can be used to control

GMFRC?

Week 6 System Level Design Review - 10/2/14

 Question: How much power will our system draw? Week 6 System Level Design Review - 10/2/14

 Question: Do we need to add a cooling method to prevent

• verheating?

 Answer: If we can use Electronics with a high enough

temperature resistance….No

Week 6 System Level Design Review - 10/2/14

 Question: Will we be able to meet our budget requirements? Week 6 System Level Design Review - 10/2/14

Component and Materials Type Manufacturer Per Unit Price ($) Bulk (X10000) CTS Rotary Actuator 640 Stock CTS 250.00 50.00 TDH30 Pressure Transducer Screw in Transducers Direct 93.00 93.00 480-2040-ND Pressure Transducer Screw in Digikey 38.97 23.72 TBPDPNS150PGUCV Pressure Transducer Board Mount Honeywell 11.08 6.88 XC-24-J-12 Thermocouple Stock Omega 22.00 22.00 490-2414-2-ND Thermistor Board Mount Digikey 0.11 0.03 XMC1202T028X0032AAXUMA1 (microprocessor) Stock Mouser 3.33 1.51 XMC4100 (ARM microprocessor) Stock Infineon 9.39 9.39 3.5 in3 6061 Aluminum cube (Body Material) Stock McMaster-Carr 35.20 15.21 Conditions Unit Bulk Most Expensive, Single Sensors 409.59 189.60 Least Expensive, Single Sensors 299.72 73.63 Most Expensive, Double Sensor 524.59 304.60 Least Expensive, Double Sensor 275.71 80.54 372.75 122.10 Specifics x1 Pressure and Temp Sensors Conservative, Single Sensors 333.67 98.35 Conservative, Double Sensor (x2) 480-2040-ND Pressure Transducer x2 Pressure and Temp Sensors x2 Pressure and Temp Sensors x1 Pressure and Temp Sensors 480-2040-ND Pressure Transducer XMC4100 (ARM microprocessor) (x2) 490-2414-2-ND Thermistor XMC4100 (ARM microprocessor) 490-2414-2-ND Thermistor

Week 6 System Level Design Review - 10/2/14

 Test fuel mixing

• Use CFD analysis to confirm distribution plate mixes fuel and air

 Test valve

• Run compressed air through device and open and close valve

 Test microcontroller

• Generate values to simulate varying sensor readings

 Test response time

• Have microcontroller open and close actuator

 Test with installed sensors

• Vary sensor variables to test microcontroller response

 Test voltage regulator

• Vary input voltage

 Test leakage

• Pressurize system and measure amount lost due to leakage

 Test flow rate accuracy and repeatability

• Connect device to compressed air tank and measure output

Week 6 System Level Design Review - 10/2/14

Week 6 System Level Design Review - 10/2/14

ID Risk Effect Cause Likelihood Severity Importance(L*S) Action to Minimize Owner Pinch Research into Connectors To ensure Durability Blockage Research into Piping Materials to ensure durability Disconnection Puncture Blow Out Leak Uncalibrated Sensor Malfunctioning Sensor Uncalibrated Sensor Ensure Sensor is calibrated and functioning with a Diagnostics Test Malfunctioning Sensor Conduct Extreme Temperature Test to verify if flow is relatively constant, Sensor can then be eliminated Uncalibrated Sensor Ensure Sensor is calibrated and functioning with a Diagnostics Test Malfunctioning Sensor Conduct Extreme Temperature Test to verify if flow is relatively constant, Sensor can then be eliminated Uncalibrated Sensor Ensure Sensors and μc are functioning with a Diagnostics Test Malfunctioning Sensor Malfunctioning μc 1 2 R1 Inability to regulate flow to/from system Inability to Regulate Flow Ensure Sensor is calibrated and functioning with a Diagnostics Test Inaccurate/unable to sustain flow rate Inability to Read Temperature Sensor R3 2 1 2 R2 Inability to Read Throttle input Unable to Adjust Flow Rate 1 1 1 Apply a fail safe to system if Pressure rises to high R5 Fail to Process Signals Unable to Control Flow Rate 2 3 6 Inability to Read Pressure Sensor Inaccurate/unable to sustain flow rate R4 2 Brian Anthony Anthony Anthony Ross Order Extras for replacement 1 2 2

Week 6 System Level Design Review - 10/2/14

ID Risk Effect Cause Likelihood Severity Importance(L*S) Action to Minimize Owner Uncalibrated Sensor Ensure Sensors, μc, and controller are functioning with a Diagnostics Test Malfunctioning Sensor Ensure Control Mechanism is clear Malfunctioning μc Troubleshoot Code Uncalibrated Controller Extreme Temperature Blockage Bad Algorithm Actuator Damage Lower Repeatability Disconnection Ensure Secure Connections and Fittings Bad Connection Design for Fewest Connections Possible Puncture Research into Durable Material Power Loss Research into Safety Measures and Mechanisms Delivery and Exit Valves Stuck Open Incorporate Protection Algorithms R9 Unit Overheats Inability to Control Flow Extreme temperature causes damage to components 2 3 6 Select Components Rated for High Temperature Tyler Damage To Components Collision Dropping Excessive Shaking Concussive Force Apply Protective Casing Vibrations Force Check Tolerances at Extreme Temperature Extreme Temperature Ensure Pressure to Mixing Unit to not high enough to cause Failure Blow Out Make Replacements Brian Mike ALL Mike Ross Encase Electronics Into Device 2 R11 Damage to Mixing Unit Inability to Deliver Mixture 1 2 2 R10 Concussive or Vibration Damage to Components Inability to Control Flow 2 1 R8 Unable to Stop Flow in an Emergency Damage To Components 1 1 1 Select Components to meet Extreme Temperature Tests R7 Device Leaks Unable to Regulate Flow 2 2 4 Inability to control Output Actuator Unable to Control Flow Rate R6 2 6 3

Week 6 System Level Design Review - 10/2/14

Week 6 System Level Design Review - 10/2/14

F Sa Su M T W R F Sa Su M T W R F Sa Su M T W R F Sa Su M T W R F Sa Su M T W R F Sa Su M T W R F Sa 1 Problem Definition & Project Plannig 19 days 24-Aug 21 System Design 21 days 11-Sep 22 Functional decomposition 4 days 11-Sep 23 Consider alternatives to FD 4 days 11-Sep 24 Risk assessment 4 days 11-Sep 25 Test plan 4 days 11-Sep 26 Morphological table 4 days 11-Sep 27 Concept generation 2 days 16-Sep 28 PUGH analysis 2 days 16-Sep 29 System architecture 2 days 16-Sep 30 Feasability analysis 3 days 18-Sep 31 Assess group capabilities 3 days 18-Sep 32 Work on presentation for phase 2 review 9 days 21-Sep 33 Determine required tech capabilities 1 day 23-Sep 34 System design phase 2 review 3 days 30-Sep 35 Peer reviews 1 day 30-Sep 36 Ensure that EDGE is up to date 1 day 30-Sep 37 Subsystems Design 21 days 3-Oct 38 Contact CTS (actuator) 3 days 3-Oct 39 Contact CAST (testing) 3 days 3-Oct 40 Contact Brinkmann Lab (fabrication) 1 day 6-Oct 41 Look into Institute Hall Lab (prototype) 1 day 6-Oct 42 Create Test for current prototype 3 days 6-Oct 43 Work on Valve Design 14 days 6-Oct 44 Start Psuedo Code 7 days 9-Oct 45 Choose Sensors/Microprocessor 3 days 11-Oct 46 Theoretical Temp/Pressure Model 7 days 11-Oct 47 Decide where to take measurements 3 days 15-Oct 48 Start Board Design 7 days 16-Oct 49 Finalize Subsystem Design 1 day 20-Oct 50 Proof of Concept 1 day 20-Oct 51 Work on Design Review Presentation 3 days 20-Oct 52 Subsystem Design Review 1 day 23-Oct 53 Peer reviews 1 day 23-Oct 54 Ensure that EDGE is up to date 1 daty 23-Oct Oct 5 - Oct 11 Oct 12 - Oct 18 Oct 19 - Oct 25 ID Task Name Duration Start ep 7 - Sep 1 Sep 14 - Sep 20 Sep 21 - Sep 27 Sep 28 - Oct 4

Week 6 System Level Design Review - 10/2/14

 Proof of concept – select a concept for valve design  Select method of measuring pressure and temperature

(sensors) as well as how they are to be mounted

 Determine how fast the microcontroller needs to be and

select one

 Determine where to find test equipment to test our device

(CAST or offsite)

 Pressure/Temperature Excel spreadsheet complete  Generate pseudo-code for the controlling the actuator Week 6 System Level Design Review - 10/2/14

Week 6 System Level Design Review - 10/2/14

Questions?

Week 6 System Level Design Review - 10/2/14

Reference Slides

Week 6 System Level Design Review - 10/2/14

Week 6 System Level Design Review - 10/2/14