Redd Team Design Project Review

Redd TeamDesign Project Review

Cailin Penberthy, Nora Sedgwick, Parker Burton, Ruth Reeber, Ujjwal Shrestha

NeedsResearch salmon habitat to gain

an understanding of specifications

Optimize incubator design (streamside and collapsible in-stream)

Needs (Cont.)Create a model to test the designIncorporate project learning into

designIncrease egg survival rate

Project Learning: ResearchInterviewsExisting incubatorsGeneral research: biological

needs of salmon and troutMaterials

Project Learning: ProcessResearch salmon and

obtain requirements from client

Visit with Scott (Cold Water Research

Laboratory)

Create multiple models

Simulate models in SolidWorks

Build and test best design

SpecificationsTemperature 37.4 to 48.2 °FDissolved Oxygen 8ppm or higherTurbidity Less than 200 NTUpH 7 to 8Velocity Range 0.2 to 0.79 ft/sDepth 0.5 to 0.9 ftTurbulence Less than 4 ft-lb/ft3/sEnvironmental Concerns No material leaching or contaminationUse Duration

Streamside: year-long usageIn-stream: April to November

Life of Product 2+ years

MobilityStreamside: minimum weight, handles for carryingIn-stream: transportable in small plane

Visibility Camouflaged to reduce human interference and preserve natural beauty

ConstraintsEasy to reconstruct (high school

students)Minimal cost and high qualityDesign/build scheduleUsable for both stream water and

river water usage

Deliverables2 models2 streamside units2 collapsible in-stream units

Design OptionsMain variable: internal divider

arrangement◦Single channel vs. dual-channel◦Straight vs. slanted◦Short vs. long dividers

Comparison using SolidWorks FlowXpress◦10 cubic inches per second◦Same divider height, thickness◦Same base part

Long dividers

Mid-length dividers

Short dividers

Mix of short and long dividers

Two-channel: straight

Two-channel: slanted

Single-channel: slanted

Flow Model Comparison

Best TwoLong dividers Mixed-length dividers

Pros• Fairly uniform velocity• Similar to existing design

(known to work)Cons• Little room for fish to

congregate• Flow has little variation

Pros• Regions of varied flow• Consistent flow in lower

region

Cons• Stagnation regions may

impede oxygenation, collect debris

Combined Design

Advantages• Long dividers provide consistent flow through WV boxes• Short divider creates a space for fish to congregate before

exiting• Stagnation area is downstream of WV boxes: oxygenation less

of a problem

Selected Design

Combined Design

Potential problems• Stagnation area may collect debris and sediment• Flow may be too uniform in beginning section: may not

simulate stream well

Selected Design (Cont.)

Selected Design (cont.)

Placement of 24 Whitlock-Vibert boxes

Model TestingInitial testing on the model showed even at the pump’s

maximum flow rate and added gravitational head the model was not able to achieve the desired velocity within the model. Added gravitational head was one foot. A larger pump is needed, once the target velocity .2 ft/s is achieved dissolved oxygen, filter ability, and basic durability testing will commence. Pump

ConditionVelocity

(ft/s)½ Rate .01

Full .01½ Rate

with Added Head

.03

Full with Added Head

.05

Project CostsStream-side Model

Prices estimated from materials purchased for the models

Material Projected CostAcrylic Sheeting (23ft2) $76.59Silicon Caulking (x3 tubes) $18.87Filtration System $20.97U-Channel Wall Attachments $120.00PVC Couplings (x2) $5.00Whitlock-Vibert Boxes (x25) $93.75Refrigerator $0.00 (Donation – Howard

Hughes)Total $335.18

Project ScheduleDate Work To Be CompletedDecember 3 Final Design CompletedJanuary 21 Build Selected DesignFebruary 25 Design Testing and ModificationsMarch 4 In-stream ModelApril 1 Project CompletionApril 8 Finish PresentationApril 15 Finish Poster and Polish PresentationApril 26 Design Expo