Gravity Fed System Team Members: James Brinkerhoff, Christopher - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Gravity Fed System

Team Members: James Brinkerhoff, Christopher Kulbago, Patrick O’Connell, Lauren Pahls, Ted Rakiewicz, Sarah Salmon Group Number: P13631

1

Table of Contents

1. Team Roles 2. Project Background 3. Schedule MSD II 4. High Level Customer Needs 5. Budget and Costs 6. Bill of Materials 7. Engineering Specifications 8. Concept Generation 9. Feasibility Analysis 10. Original System Architecture 11. Original P&ID 12. Original Cart Layout 13. MSD I vs. MSD II Comparison 14. Final P&ID 15. Final Cart Layout 16. Test Results Data 17. Labview Layout 18. Risk Assessment 19. Successes and Failures 20. Issues and Actions MSD I 21. Issues and Actions MSD II 22. Questions

2

Team Roles

• Chris Kulbago- Project Manager
• James Brinkerhoff- Lead Engineer
• Lauren Pahls- Fluids Specialist
• Sarah Salmon- Group Facilitator
• Patrick O’Connell- Lead Mechanical
• Ted Rakiewicz- Lead Electrical

3

Project Background

• Task

Demonstrate process control in a lab environment using a gravity fed loop with a control valve with an existing flow cart as reference.

• Customer and Sponsor

RIT’s Chemical Engineering Department

• Other Support

Kodak’s Steve Possanza was our guide through this process. Kodak also donated old parts to make our cart fully functional.

• Product Stakeholders

Students who will use the machine, the Department, Dr. Sanchez, Dr. Richter, and staff who will maintain the machine.

• Collaboration

Two other groups are designing similar process control machines whose aesthetic appearances must match ours.

4

Schedule MSD II

5

Customer Needs

• Did we meet them?

Customer need: Does project fulfill need? Safety Yes Ergonomics Yes Mobility Yes Teaching Manually Yes Teaching Auto-Controls Yes Ease of Assembly Yes Low Cost Yes Use of LabVIEW Yes Drained Tank Dynamics Yes 6

High Level Customer Needs

• Machine Design Needs:
• A way for students to manually manipulate flow.
• A way to manually measure flow.
• Easily operated by 3 students.
• A safely operating machine.
• Interface of machine with LabVIEW.
• A way to demonstrate main concepts of process control.
• A way to demonstrate noise and time lag in sensors.
• Student Learning Needs:
• A lab manual that guides students through lab in a way that

engenders learning.

• Discussion questions within lab manual that test understanding
• f process control.
• Lab manual that focuses on PID control, noise, filtration, data

modeling, disturbances, and/or hysteresis.

7

Budget & Costs

1086.74 1206.28 1500 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Money ($)

Budget Tracking

Actual Spent Anticipated Spending Original Request

8

Bill of Materials

9 Grouping of items:

• Items were first divided into three main subsections:
• 1. Donated by Kodak
• 2. Donated by RIT
• 3. Bought ourselves
• Items purchased were further divided:
• 1. Cart construction equipment
• 2. Electrical equipment
• 3. Miscellaneous Lowe’s items
• Dimensions, part numbers, price, location, and arrival were all listed

to better inform team of item status.

• Budget was tracked by entering an estimated cost for items not yet

purchased and confirming the cost when the items arrived.

• Our bill of materials is very large and can be viewed on our Edge site.

Engineering Specifications

• In order to complete the project, the group had to translate

customer needs into technical specifications.

• How well the group did in staying within the 19 specifications is

summarized below:

18 1

Specifications

Specifications met Specification assumed met Specification not met 10

Specifications Met: Part 1

11

Specifications Met: Part 2

12

Specifications Met: Part 3

13

Specification Assumed Met

14

Contingency Plan for Assumed Specification

• Contact 4th year Chemical Engineering students to test cart.
• Conduct time and operation trials on all contacted persons with

cart and lab manual.

15

Concept Generation

16

Feasibility Analysis

• Line pressure confirmation
• With one faucet received around 50 psi
• With all faucets on decreased to about 45 psi

17

Original System Architecture

18

Original P&ID

19

Original Cart Layout

20

MSD I vs. MSD II Comparison

Item MSD I MSD II Overall goal Concept Generation Building and Integration Deliverables Theoretical; Organization and charts As-built final documents Time 10 weeks 16 weeks Individual Contributions About equal More work from EE and ME Grading Throughout; Several milestones Only a Functional Review and a Final Review 21

Final P&ID

22

Final Cart Layout

23

Test Results Data

24

Labview Layout

25

Risk Assessment

26

Successes & Failures

• Successes
• Cart is aesthetically constructed, and highly functional.
• LabVIEW provides accurate data collection and adequately allows

for student interaction for real-time process control of a dynamic system.

• Group overcame an equipment failure, and adapted to prevent

project hindrance.

• Project is under budget.
• All deliverables submitted on time.
• Failures
• Digital-to-Analog Converter operation is deviated from design

intent (as of right now).

• Cart water usage is not optimized.

27

Issues/Actions MSD I

• Gravity fed to line feed
• We initially were going to have a project that was “gravity fed to a

line feed,” where we had a permanent height for a gravity feed stream.

• Instead of this, we decided to use a second control loop and set of

code in order to be able to be more versatile and mimic different heights with different water pressures from a water line.

• Coordinating cart purchase
• We discussed a cart design that fits the needs of all three groups.
• After negotiating, we came up with a final cart to be used by all

three groups.

• Slow start to project
• Edge was not readily available for students at the start of MSD I.
• The lab learning portion was in progress

28

Issues/Actions MSD II

• Misinterpreted Pressure Loss
• Water pressure loss across flow tube was greater than calculated, and

therefore the water flow rate out in preliminary testing was too low.

• We rearranged the cart layout to use potential energy to make our cart

drain at the required flow rate.

• Delicate Level Transmitter
• The original mounting design for the level transmitter damaged it. After

mounting, it gave erroneous readings.

• A new level transmitter was rush delivered and mounted with electrical
• tape. Special handling instructions were noted in manual.
• Interface Issues
• The equipment given to us by Kodak was very used and worn. At first, we

did not know how to properly control the 2 I/P circuits, preventing control valve operation.

• Through rigorous testing, this problem was solved and our I/P’s are now

fully functional as anticipated.

29

Future Suggestions

• Recycle Loop
• Install a pump with a recycle stream and an additional tank or vessel in
• rder to reduce water usage.
• Time Study
• Have 4th year Chemical Engineering students perform the lab procedure

and measure time it takes for students to complete the lab.

• Switch Microcontroller
• Replace the msp430 Microcontroller with a more reliable National

Instruments Data Acquisition for increased accuracy, ease of assembly and use.

• Newer and More Robust Parts
• The Level Transmitter we purchased was low in cost but carries a risk. A

differential pressure cell would minimize this risk.

• Parts donated by Kodak are used and worn, and if these are replaced

the robustness of the cart can improve.

30

Questions?

31