gravity fed system n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Gravity Fed System PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Gravity Fed System

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 31

Gravity Fed System - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Uploaded on

Gravity Fed System. Team Members: J ames Brinkerhoff, Christopher Kulbago, Patrick O’Connell, Lauren Pahls, Ted Rakiewicz, Sarah Salmon Group Number: P13631. Table of Contents. Team Roles Project Background Schedule MSD II High Level Customer Needs Budget and Costs Bill of Materials

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Gravity Fed System' - gaurav

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
gravity fed system

Gravity Fed System

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

Group Number: P13631

table of contents
Table of Contents
  • Team Roles
  • Project Background
  • Schedule MSD II
  • High Level Customer Needs
  • Budget and Costs
  • Bill of Materials
  • Engineering Specifications
  • Concept Generation
  • Feasibility Analysis
  • Original System Architecture
  • Original P&ID
  • Original Cart Layout
  • MSD I vs. MSD II Comparison
  • Final P&ID
  • Final Cart Layout
  • Test Results Data
  • Labview Layout
  • Risk Assessment
  • Successes and Failures
  • Issues and Actions MSD I
  • Issues and Actions MSD II
  • Questions
team roles
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
project background
Project Background
  • Task

Demonstrate process control in a lab environment using a gravity fed loop with a control valvewith 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.

customer needs
Customer Needs
  • Did we meet them?
high level customer needs
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 of process control.
    • Lab manual that focuses on PID control, noise, filtration, data modeling, disturbances, and/or hysteresis.
bill of materials
Bill of Materials
  • 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
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:
contingency plan for assumed specification
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.
feasibility analysis
Feasibility Analysis
  • Line pressure confirmation
  • With one faucet received around 50 psi
  • With all faucets on decreased to about 45 psi
successes failures
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.
issues actions msd i
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
issues actions msd ii
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.
future suggestions
Future Suggestions
  • Recycle Loop
    • Install a pump with a recycle stream and an additional tank or vessel in order 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 assemblyand 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.