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.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
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
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
of process control.
• Lab manual that focuses on PID control, noise, filtration, data
modeling, disturbances, and/or hysteresis.
7
Budget & Costs
Budget Tracking
1600
1500
1400
1200
1206.28
Money ($)
1000
1086.74
Actual Spent
800
Anticipated Spending
Original Request
600
400
200
0
8
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.
9
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:
Specifications
1
Specifications
met
Specification
assumed met
Specification
not met
18
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 As-built final documents
and charts
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
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 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