Heat Exchanger By: Kayla Badamo, Josh Lutton, and Daniel Jackson - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Heat Exchanger

By: Kayla Badamo, Josh Lutton, and Daniel Jackson Edesign 100 Section 026

Outline

• Mission Statement and Target Improvements
• Background Research
• Criteria
• Initial Concepts and Solution
• Testing
• AM limitations and comparison with SM
• Cost and Build Time
• Conclusion

The Customer and Our Mission Statement

• Our customer is Lockheed Martin.
• The goal is to optimize the design of one of their heat exchangers for

additive manufacturing.

Target Improvements

• Create a more effective heat exchanger by increasing surface area without

detracting from other design specifications such as airflow.

Background Research

• Two concepts affect the heat transfer (1)
• Area of the material
• Thermal Conductivity of the material
• To improve this heat exchanger, we need to increase the surface area and

use a material with a high thermal conductivity.

Criteria and importance

• Increase Surface Area
• Maintain air flow level in order to remove heat.
• Approximately the same weight since it is on a aircraft.
• Maintain same external dimensions since it still needs to fit in a small space
• Reduce cost and build time to expedite manufacturing

Initial Concept Ideas

• Large two-way hexagons
• small two-way hexagons
• small one-way hexagons

Large two-way hexagons

Small two-way hexagons

Small one-way hexagons

Design Selection Matrix

Chosen Concept

• Small two-way hexagon lattice structure
• Greatest surface area

3D Printed Prototypes

Conducted Tests

• Flow test
• Air flow test
• Calculated Weight
• Calculated Surface Area

Flow Tests

• For the flow test, we poured water through the prototype to see how well it

flowed through.

• For the air flow test, we shot compressed air through the prototype against

a piece of paper to make sure it had a good airflow.

Calculated weight

• We used Solidworks mass properties to calculate the weight of our
• prototypes. We also changed the material to aluminum to get a realistic

number.

• Original- 2.87 pounds
• Large two-way- 2.06 pounds
• Small one-way- 2.48 pounds
• Small two-way- 5.39 pounds

Calculated Surface Area

• We used the surface area calculator in Solidworks and compared it to the
• riginal surface area
• Original- 1039 square inches
• Large two-way- 640 square inches
• Small one-way-1658 square inches
• Small two-way-2959 square inches

Limitations of AM

• Minimum feature size
• Orientation had to be right so we didn’t need supports

Benefits AM vs Subtractive Manufacturing

• Allows geometries that are difficult to achieve with subtractive
• Lower cost than subtractive
• Allows for on-site manufacturing and shorter supply chains
• Allows low volumes of custom parts
• Less waste material left over

[4]

Recommended Manufacturing Method and Material used

• Powder Bed Fusion (direct metal laser sintering)
• Directed energy deposition (fast rough surface) not optimal for this project
• Use Aluminum as the material
• High heat conductivity and heat transfer

Cost and Build Time

• DMLS Aluminum powder is $.45 per square centimeter (2)
• $.45 x 19000 square centimeter= $8,550
• Direct metal laser sintering machine build speed is .001 cubic inches per

second (3)

• Volume of chosen concept – 54.8 cubic inches per second
• 54.8/ .001= 54800 seconds= 152 hours= 6.3 days

Fulfillment of Design Goals

• Two prototypes increased surface area, one by ~60% and one by ~300%
• Two prototypes decreased weight, the one that increased weight

dramatically increased surface area.

• Minimal impact on airflow maintains functionality

Conclusion

• Lockheed Martin wanted us to improve their heat exchanger using additive

manufacturing

• We increased surface area and used a good heat conductor for our heat exchanger

because that makes it more efficient

• Our design tripled the surface area and kept a good air flow
• We recommend using Powder bed fusion (direct metal laser sintering) as the AM

method and using aluminum as the material because it is a good conductor of heat.

• We learned about methods of AM and why they are better than subtractive
• methods. We also learned how to work well as a team.

References

• 1. Concord.org. "Heat Transfer." AccessScience (n.d.): n. pag. Concord. The Concord
• Consortium. Web.
• 2. Shapeways.com. "Aluminum 3D Printing Material Information - Shapeways."

Shapeways.com. Shapeways Inc., n.d. Web. 26 Apr. 2016.

• 3. Dmlstechnology.com. "DMLS Machines." DMLS Machines. DMLS Technology,

n.d. Web. 26 Apr. 2016.

• 4. http://www.raeng.org.uk/publications/reports/additive-manufacturing "Additive

Manufacturing: Opportunities and Constraints". Rep. Royal Academy of Engineering, 23 May 2013. Web. 25 Apr. 2016.