Team 2 Detailed Design Report

8/8/2019 Team 2 Detailed Design Report

1/34

HYDRO-POWERED GENERATOR

Quinn MarkelRonak PatelJon Takosky

4/22/2010

Team 2

Executive Summary

The objective of the faucet-powered generator project was to create a micro-hydropowergenerator able to attach to a normal faucet head. The generator had to satisfy different criteria,specifications, and customer needs. The generators output has to be at least 1.5V with a load of10 Ohms. The device also has to be safe, inexpensive, and easy to use. The first step that theteam took was completing the planning stage, which included external research and creating a

Gantt chart. The planning stage also included early calculations that were used during conceptdevelopment. During the concept development stage the team used information from theplanning stage to create possible concepts. The team then used screening and scoring matrices todecide on which concept to continue. The final design combines the best aspects of each concept.The final idea has a Pelton wheel, a plastic housing case, and plastic gears connecting the shaft tothe generator. With only three main parts, the manufacturing cost is small relative to the potentialretail price. The profit margin combined with a well thought out design creates a greatopportunity for a successful product.


2/34

Page 2 of34

Table of ContentsExecutive Summary Page1. Introduction 3-4

1.1 Problem Statement 31.2 Background Information 3

1.3 Project Planning 32. Customer Needs and Specifications 4-6

2.1 Establishing Customer Needs 42.2 Establishing Target Specifications and Metrics 52.3 Relationship of Engineering Specifications to Customer Needs 6

3. Concept Development 6-103.1 External Search 63.2 Problem Decomposition 73.3 Ideation Methods 73.4 Description of the Design Concepts 83.5 Concept Selection 9

4. System Level Design 114.1 Chosen Design 11

5. Detail Level Design 11-165.1 Component Selection 115.2 Material Selection 125.3 Fabrication Process 125.4 CAD Drawings 135.5 Bill of Material 135.6 Economic Analysis 135.7 Calculations 155.8 Test Procedure 15

6. Conclusion 167. References 17-18Appendices 19-34


3/34

Page 3 of34

1. Introduction

The team researched and designed a micro-hydropower system that can attach to a householdfaucet.

1.1 Problem StatementThe problem assigned to the team is to create a water turbine system that can be used as a faucet-powered generator. The main idea of the project is to create a system able of producing power,while customer uses the water for different purposes. The team is to design a new product thatsatisfies different customer needs like being inexpensive, attractive, easy to use, safe, andefficient. The product is designed to cost less than fifty dollars, while producing the neededpower with maximum efficiency. It also needs to attach easily and securely to the faucet withouthaving any leaks. The water flow is to discharge vertically downward so that faucet can be usedlike it is normally. In accordance with maintaining normal faucet operation, the product must notexceed four inches in total length while being self contained. The product also must be safe forcustomer use, this includes being able to function reliably and repeatedly in a wet environment.

The final major criterion is the generation of at least one and a half volts with a load of ten ohms.All of these needs and constraints must be accounted for throughout the design process.

1.2 Background Information

The primary information used in this project is information regarding water turbines andgenerators. These subjects also incorporate fluid flow and different types of mechanics. The teamused different resources to gather the necessary information to complete the project. One of thebiggest resources that the team used was prior knowledge, which each team member has gainedthrough attending different college courses. Each team member has experience in fluidmechanics and other general engineering classes. In the fluid mechanics class, each teammember studied fluid properties, fluid flow, energy produced by a fluid, and the effects of

pressure. The team also has familiarity with the workings of turbines and also the basiccalculations used to design turbines. The team members also have an understanding of electricalcomponents from an electrical engineering class. Coupled with these classes, each member alsohas access to text books and online databases. Moreover, the team has many other resourcesincluding but not limited to libraries, professors, and other literature. Existing knowledge as wellas a vast amount of resources gives the team the required technical knowledge to create asuccessful product. The team has high hopes in creating a competitive product. The motivation isto design the best product that will bring in the highest revenue for the company.

1.3 Project Planning

The team used a product development process designed for market pull items that

begins with planning and ends with a working product. During the planning stage the teamestablished a rough time schedule that evolved into a detailed Gantt chart. The Gantt chart wasused to track the progress of the team. The planning stage also included in-depth research dealingboth with water turbine-generators and existing products. The team also looked at the customerneeds and specifications as listed in the project scope. After the planning stage, the team beganusing the gathered information to complete scoping calculations that assisted the team in theconcept development stage. The concept development stage consisted of each team membermaking early sketches and designs for the turbine blade, housing, and shaft connection. The


4/34

Page 4 of34

design for the turbine blade was based mainly on the scoping calculations, which determined thetype of turbine and the blade specifications.

After the initial designs were made, the team compared different concepts through twodecision matrices. The matrices were weighted based on the customer needs. The entire teamworked together through the decision process, ending with a final design. This final concept was

then evaluated using the system-level design phase where the team looked into each individualpart of the system. This produced the final design concept that was machined into the finalproduct. The final product will be tested to determine the power output, efficiency, and otherspecifications.

The product was completed in seven weeks. The planning stage took 2 weeks. Afterwhich, the concept generation and selection stages took an additional 2 weeks. The final designwas to be completed by April 17, 2010. The assembly of the alpha prototype will be completedby April 21, 2010. The testing will then begin, closely followed by the completion of a finalreport and design. In order to complete the product on time the team used and followed the Ganttchart that can be found in Appendix A. The team also used different resources to complete thetask. Through the use of the campus library, the team gathered material from text books, news

articles, magazines, and the internet. The team also gathered information from talking toprofessors and other people in a related field. Most of the design process was completed with thehelp of computer design programs such as SolidWorks. With the help of these resources, theteam was able to research, design, build, and test the product in the allotted timeframe.

2. Customer Needs and Specifications

2.1 Establishing Customer Needs

The team identified customer needs in order to develop metrics and values that aided in the finaldesign of the turbine. To determine these needs, the team used the project description. Theproject description lists required customer needs. In addition, the team wanted to conduct an

interview to determine which accessory to attach to the product that will utilize the generatedelectrical power. The interview the team used is found in Appendix B. There are seven differentcustomer needs that must be met in order to satisfy the problem description. The customer needsare listed below in Table 1. The weights for the customer need were found using the AnalyticalHierarchy Process or AHP. Appendix C contains the matrices that the team used during the AHPto determine the weights of the customer needs. Furthermore, the team used all of the customerneeds and their weights when assessing the different designs during the concept selectionprocess.

Table 1. Weighted Customer Needs by AHP Method

Need

No.

Customer Need Weighting

(From AHP)1 High Performance 12%

2 Safety 29%

3 Reliability 15%

4 Ease of Use 9%

5 Appearance 7%

6 Maintain normal faucet operation 21%

7 Inexpensive 7%


5/34

Page 5 of34

2.2 Establishing Target Specifications and Metrics

After establishing the customer needs, the team elaborated on the needs to develop metrics andvalues. The first need is that the device has to perform at a high level. To do so the water turbinehas to output a certain voltage and power while being efficient. The second need is that the

device needs to be safe. There are inherent risks due to the fact that a motor runs near water. Thedevice has to be reliable is the third need. The device needs to be able to run in a wetenvironment without corroding or failing in order to satisfy this need. In addition, the electricalconnections have to be soldered. The fourth need is the device has to be easy to use. This breaksdown to the product needs to secure tightly without leaking and not be too long. The device alsoneeds to instill pride in the user, which satisfies the fifth need of appearance. The sixth need is tomaintain normal faucet operation, which is simply that the device needs to discharge the watervertically downward like a normal faucet. The seventh and final need is the product needs tohave a low retail cost. The expansion of the customer needs gives rise to the different metricsthat are listed in Table 2. In addition, the table lists marginally acceptable as well as ideal values.The marginally acceptable values of the metrics are the minimum values the product needs to

meet in order to satisfy the problem requirements. The ideal values are those that the team chosein order to have a product that will be competitive in the market. Overall, the team tries to keepthe feasibility of the product operation in mind when choosing values for the metrics. Thecombination of the metrics and values establish the engineering specifications of the product.

Table 2. Product Target Specifications

MetricNo.

NeedNos. Metric Imp. Units

MarginalValue

Ideal Value

1 1 Power generation 3 W >1.5 >2.0

2 1 Voltage generation 3 V > 1.5 > 2.0

3 1 Efficiency 3 % >75 >85

4 7 Retail Cost 2 US $ < 50 < 40

5 3,4Secure tightly withoutleaks 4 Binary

Pass Pass

6 6Water dischargevertically downward 4 Binary

Pass Pass

7 4,5 Length of device 3 in. < 4 < 3

8 4 Install time 3 sec < 90 < 45

9 2,3Work repeatedly in awet environment 5 Cycles

>1000 >5000

10 2,3

Generator does not

get wet 5 BinaryPass Pass

11 5 Looks good 2 Subj. Yes Yes

12 2,3Electrical connectionsare soldered 5 Binary

Pass Pass


6/34

Page 6 of34

2.3 Relationship of Engineering Specifications to Customer Needs

Figure 1 below shows a QFD for the product to describe the relationship between engineeringspecifications and customer needs. The QFD compares the seven different customer needs to thetwelve different metrics. Engineering targets are also present to gauge the success of the product.

Engineering Requirements

PowerGeneration

VoltageGeneration

Efficiency

RetailCost

Securestightlywithout

leaks

Waterdischarges

verticallydownward

Lengthofdevice

Installtime

Worksrepeatedlyinwet

environment

Generatordoesnotget

wet

Looksgood

Electricalconnectionsare

soldered

CustomerRequirements High Performance X X X

Safety X X X

Reliability X X X X

Ease of Use X X X

Appearance X X

Maintain normal faucetoperation

X

Inexpensive X

Units

Watts

Volts

%US$

Binary

Binary

in.

sec.

Cycles

Binary

Subj.

Binary

1.5 1.5 75 50 Pass

Pass

4 901

000

Pass

Yes Pass

Engineering Targets

Figure 1. QFD chart

3. Concept Development

3.1 External Search

The next stage in the product development process was concept development. The teamstarted with an external search. This search indentified existing products and patents, whichserved as the basis for both concept generation and benchmarking products. Currently, in the

market there are a few products that the teams product must compete against. First, there is theOsram Sylvania ECOLight [1]. This ECOLight runs off the water from a shower and uses thegenerated electrical power to run a light. Another product in the market is the Toto EcoPowerfaucet. The EcoPower faucet uses a water turbine along with a generator to create and storepower [2]. Moreover, an additional product the team will have to compete with is the EcoLightdesigned by Lysandre Follet. The EcoLight uses the same concept to light up a swimming pool[3]. Although the teams product has to compete against the three existing products, the greatestcompetitor is the Toto EcoPower faucet. Toto is the biggest competitor because it uses a faucet


7/34

Page 7 of34

as the source of water; whereas, the two other products use water from other sources. In addition,a search for patents also reveals similar products that exist in the market, and that differentproducts use the generated power in different ways. The cover page of the related patents can befound in Appendix D.

3.2 Problem DecompositionOnce the team completed the external search, the team decomposed the problem into multiplesub-problems. The team used a functional decomposition to break down the problem. The teamused a black box decomposition to get a basic breakdown of the problem. From there theblack box decomposition was refined to show the specific sub-functions. The basic blackbox decomposition can be seen in Figure 2, and Figure 3 is the specific one. By breaking downthe problem, the team got a better understanding of what the device needed to do and how itneeded to be done.

Input Output

Energy (kinetic) Faucet-PoweredGenerator

Energy (electric and kinetic)Material (water) Material (water)

Signal (turn on faucet) Signal (?)

Figure 2. Basic black box decomposition

Energy

Acceptexternalenergy

Convertenergy toelectricalenergy

Storeelectricalenergy ingenerator

Applyenergy tocomplete atask

Water

Waterhitsturbineblades

Watercausesblades tospin

Watercontinues toflowdownward

Poweredaccessory anddownward waterflow

Turn onFaucet

Startwaterflow

Figure 3. Specific black box decomposition

3.3 Ideation Methods

After the team decomposed the problem, the team was ready to begin generating concepts. Theteam implemented brainstorming and the gallery method as the primary methods of ideation.First, the team generated concepts individually. Each team member tried to develop one or twoconcepts for how to solve the problem. Next, the team worked together to generate moreconcepts using the gallery method. Each team member presented one or two concepts in hopes of


8/34

Page 8 of34

either refining the existing concept or developing a new concept. The team allocated enoughtime here to ensure the best possible solution to the problem was found.

3.4 Description of Design Concepts

There are three concepts the team considered. The team did calculations to determine various

elements of the water turbine and one of the most important calculations was for specific speed,which defines the type of turbine that should be used. The teams calculations are in Appendix E.From the calculations, the team learned that either a Pelton wheel or a Francis wheel wouldwork, but because the specific speed value was on the lower end, the team decided to choose aPelton wheel. The three designs the team considered are Figure 4-6.

3.4.1 Design Concept 1

This concept uses six buckets. Thewater will cause the water turbine tospin, which in turn causes theattached wheel to spin as well.

There is another wheel attached tothe motor. Both the wheels have agroove cut out in them which willhouse a band. The band willconnect the two wheels. The wheelat the turbine will be much largerthan the wheel attached to themotor, which will cause the motorto spin faster. If the motor is able tospin faster, then it will also generatemore electrical power.

Figure 4. Isometric of Design 1

3.4.2 Design Concept 2This concept uses nine buckets. Thisconcept assumes that since the buckets arecloser together, they will be able to movefaster because there is less time anddistance between each contact with water.The turbine and the motor will spin atalmost the same speed. The shaft of theturbine will have a cutout in it that willhouse the shaft of the motor. Since theywill be directly connected, they will havethe same rotation speed.

Figure 5. Isometric of Design 2


9/34

Page 9 of34

3.4.3 Design Concept 3

This concept uses ten buckets. Thisconcept focuses on making the motorgo significantly faster than theturbines, which will allow for the max

possible power generation. Thedesign allows the motor to spin fasterby using gears. The gear attached tothe shaft of the turbine is much largerthan the gear on the motor. Thismeans that the motor will spinsignificantly faster.

Figure 6. Front view of Design 3

3.5 Concept Selection

After concept generation, the team began the process of concept selection. In concept selectionthe team first used a scoring matrix. Overall, all of the designs are similar except for the numberbuckets and the means of connecting the turbine to the motor. The selection criteria in thescreening matrix use the customer needs that were identified earlier.

CONCEPT VARIANTS

SELECTION CRITERIA 1 2 3E

(REF.)

High Performance 0 - + 0Safety - - 0 0

Reliability - 0 + 0

Ease of Use 0 + + 0

Appearance + + - 0

Maintain normal faucetoperation 0 0 0 0

Inexpensive - + 0 0

PLUSES 1 3 3

SAMES 3 2 3MINUSES 3 2 1

NET -2 1 2

RANK 3 2 1

CONTINUE No Yes Yes

Figure 7. Concept Screening Matrix


10/34

Page 10 of34

After using a screening matrix, the team realized that it would be wise to discontinue conceptone because concept two and three have more potential. Concept one is good because it useswheels to increase the speed that the motor will spin at. However, the use of the wheels createsproblems. The heat and friction from the band spinning can potentially snap the band, whichwould cause the system to fail. This creates a safety issue and makes the product unreliable.

Moreover, the use of that many individual parts will raise the cost of the product. Because it isunclear whether to pursue design concept two or three, the team used a concept scoring matrix.Once again the criteria will be the needs and the weights will be those established earlier with theAHP method. The ratings are on a scale of 1 through 5.

Concept

Design 2 Design 3

SelectionCriteria

Weight (%) RatingWeighted

ScoreRating

WeightedScore

HighPerformance 12 2 0.24 4 0.48

Safety 29 2 0.58 3 0.87

Reliability 15 3 0.45 4 0.6

Ease of Use 9 3 0.27 3 0.27

Appearance 7 4 0.28 2 0.14

Maintain normalfaucet operation

21 3 0.63 3 0.63

Inexpensive 7 5 0.35 3 0.21

Total Score 2.8 3.2Rank 2 1

Continue? Combine Combine

Figure 8. Concept Scoring Matrix

After using a concept scoring matrix the team chose to combine design two and design three.Both design two and three used a Pelton wheel, but they differed in the number of buckets, theway they are attached to the motor, and the dimensions of various parts. The results from thescoring matrix make sense based upon the design concepts and the selection criteria. Design twoused a direct connection to attach to the motor. Design three used gears to connect to the motor.

Thus, design three would be able to generate more power because it increases the rotation speedof the shaft. Design two used a nine bucket wheel, and design three used a ten bucket wheel.Design three has an edge in reliability because it is stronger, and the added strength is a result ofa better distribution of the force from the water. On the other hand, both the nine buckets anddirect connection help design two outscore design three in appearance and being inexpensive.However, these categories are weighted less than power generation, safety, and reliability.Therefore, it makes sense that concept three is ranked higher. Overall, design three is onlyslightly better than design two. Thus, the two concepts will be combined to create a final design.


11/34

Page 11 of34

4. System Level Design

4.1 Chosen Design

The design that the team chose combines the aesthetics of design two with the power generationof design three. Appendix F has illustrations with descriptions of the final design. The final

design will implement a simple Pelton wheel incased in a plastic shell. The Pelton wheel will bemade by a rapid prototyping machine. The shell will be made with Plexiglas. The turbine wasdesigned to meet the necessary thickness specifications of the prototyping machine, whichensures the prototyping machine will produce a working piece. The designed shell will be madeof clear Plexiglas, which creates an inside view of the inner workings of the turbine. Runningthrough the shell and turbine is a stainless steel shaft that will be connected to the motor. Theconnection between the motor and the turbine will be created using different sized gears that willcause the motor to spin faster and generate more power. Accordingly, to preliminary calculationthe approximate ratio of the gears is 1:16. However, the exact size will be determined using therpm vs. voltage graph, which can be found in Appendix G, and using the results from testing theturbine. The design may implement two ball bearings that will reduce friction while holding the

shaft in place. Hence, the shafts would be able to rotate at a higher rate. The exact placement ofthe motor will be based on the gear design. The motor will also be encased in a plastic housingpreventing the motor from getting wet. The housing case will be design to fit the motor andelectric connections safely and securely.1

5. Detailed Design Report

5.1 Component Selection

The faucet powered generator will be composed of nine components. The components include amotor, 6mm gear, 25mm gear, half inch brass fitting, 1.5mm shaft, 1/8 in. shaft, Pelton wheel,plastic casing, and a digital thermometer. The first component in the unit is a RF-370CA motor

from Jameco. This is the motor that was specified in the problem description so the team used it.The next two components are a 6 mm and a 25 mm gear, and there will be two of each. The teamis going to use two of each gear to make sure the product will have the correct gear ratio andgenerate sufficient power. Moreover, the team chose to use two sets of gears so the massproduction unit would not be too bulky and aesthetically unappealing, which is the case whenusing a single pair of gears. The fourth component is a half inch brass fitting. The team chose topurchase a brass fitting from Watts Regulatory Company because it is not expensive andeliminates any problems associated with developing one within the company. In addition, using abrass fitting allows the product to be both reliable and easy to use; this is because it will securetightly without leaks, and not wear under pressure like plastic which may deteriorate. Next, theteam plans to use a 1.5 mm and 1/8 in. stainless steel shaft. The 1.5 mm shaft will be used on the

gears and the 1/8 in. shaft will be used on the turbine wheel. Both stainless steel shafts wereselected for reliability. The team is going to use a Pelton wheel based on the specific speedcalculations found in Appendix E. The next component the team will be using is a plastic casing.The plastic casing holds the whole product together and keeps everything in place. In addition,the plastic casing will be a cheap and reliable way to hide the inner workings of the faucet

1The team has refined the calculations, and the exact gear ratio has been found to be 1:8.33333. This gear ratio will

allow the team not only to meet, but to exceed the power generation requirements. The calculations can be found inAppendix E. Moreover, the revised design and drawings can be found in Appendix F.


12/34

Page 12 of34

powered generator while being aesthetically appealing. The last component of the massproduction unit is a digital thermometer. The survey from Appendix B helped the team decidethat the best way to use the generated electrical power is to run a digital thermometer. The digitalthermometer will allow the user to know the temperature of the water, which eliminates anysurprises about how hot or cold the water, is during operation. This component was selected not

only based off customer preference, but also because it adds an element of safety and ease of use.The generator will be safer because the user can constantly gauge the temperature of the watercoming out. It will be easier to use because the digital thermometer displays the temperature, andthe user does not have to try to read a scale. Overall, all of the components of the massproduction unit were selected to ensure the product will be reliable, easy to use, safe, andgenerate the required power.

5.2 Material Selection

The final design ofthe teams faucet powered generator consists of three different types ofmaterials: brass, steel, and plastic. The half inch nozzle fitting that attaches to the faucet head ismade of brass. Brass was used over other materials because brass can reliably and securely attach

the system to the faucet at a low cost. Moreover, both of the shafts were chosen to be made ofstainless steel. A stainless steel shaft is more reliable when under stress compared to othermaterials like carbon fiber or other plastics. Stainless steel also does not rust, which is helpfulbecause the shaft on the Pelton wheel will be in constant contact with water. The remaining partsin the assembly, which are the wheel and motor housings, the Pelton wheel, and the plastic gears,are all made out of an opaque plastic. The choice for this material was based upon cost andaesthetics. The cost of plastic when compared to metal alternatives is moderately less expensive,while still providing necessary structural integrity and reliability [5-6]. The decision to create thehousing from opaque plastic was based upon an industrial design perspective in order to meet theaesthetic needs of the customer. The team decided that a plastic housing for the design would bemore appealing than having one made of another material. All of the materials in the design werechosen to maintain a high quality product while maximizing profits.

5.3 Fabrication Process

The fabrication process for the teams final assembly begins with injection molding. The first

injection molding will be for the plastic housing. This injection modeling takes the two existinghousing structures, the Pelton wheel housing and the gear-motor housing, and combines theminto a single mold. This casting cuts down on labor costs because employees have less toassemble; along the same lines, it cuts down on manufacturing cost because one mold can beused instead of two. A single part also has a lower likelihood of failure compared to several partsput together by workers on an assembly line. The second injection molding will be for the Peltonwheel turbine. The process for creating this molding will be the same as that for creating themolding of the housing. The cost of this casting, due to its complexity, is estimated to be moreexpensive than the casting of the housing structure, which can be seen in the economic analysis.The next step in the process is to purchase all of the remaining parts though distributors. Theplastic gears and stainless steel shafts will be purchased in bulk through McMaster Carr [7-8].This bulk purchase lessens the cost of the materials and reduces the chances of failure as opposedto machining the parts within the company. This is also true of the half inch nozzle fittingpurchased through Watts Regulatory Company [9]. The final part purchased for the assembly isthe motor manufactured by Jameco. Once all of the parts are purchased, a labor force will


13/34

Page 13 of34

manufacture the final product. In order to decrease the overall cost and production time, the totalnumber of parts was reduced from the original prototype.

5.4 CAD Drawings

The team prepared detailed CAD drawings of the total assembly. Drawings of the assembly in

three dimensions from various angles are attached. In addition, detailed drawings of the Peltonwheel, the bucket, the turbine casing, and the motor casing are also attached. All of the drawingscan be found in Appendix F.

5.5 Bill of Materials

The bill of material shown below lists the materials and costs for each of the pieces of the finalproduct. Most of the final product is going to be made out of injection molded plastic, with theexception of the shafts and plastic gears. The cost of the material for each unit is roughly $9.75dollars. Therefore, the material for 100K units would cost the team about $975,000 [10-17].

Table 4. Bills of Material per Unit

5.6 Economic Analysis

The total cost of the product is the sum of the variable, fixed, and total direct costs. The variablecost includes the costs of the materials, tooling, and assembly. In addition, even though thematerial is just a portion of the overall cost, it heavily impacts the total cost of the product. Thebreakdown of the materials and their costs is listed in Table 4. Moreover, the housing and theturbine are created from an injection mold; thus, the team has included the cost required to theprocess these parts. Along the same lines, the injection molding process will utilize a reusablemold to save money. The final variable cost is cost of assembly. The breakdown of the cost toassemble the product is in Appendix H. Next, the team determined the fixed costs. The fixedcosts are those of purchasing the injection mold for both the turbine and housing. Lastly, theteam determined the total direct cost. This includes marketing, developments costs, and staffingoverhead. All of the variable, fixed, and direct costs are displayed in table five [16-17].

Piece Cost

Amount

Needed/Unit Cost/ Unit

Injection Plastic $1.50/pound .75 pounds $1.25

Motor $4.25 1 $4.25

Plastic Gears $.75 4 $3.00

Shaft $.24/in 3 in $0.72

Brass Connection $0.65 1 $0.65

Total/Unit $9.75


14/34

Page 14 of34

Variable Cost

Materials Bills of Material $9.75

Processing (turbine) 50 units/hour at $125/hr $2.50

Processing (housing) 100 units/hour at $100/hr $1

Assembly Assembly Chart $1.06

Fixed Cost

Injection Molding Mold (turbine) $100,000/tool at 400k units/tool $0.25

Injection Molding Mold (housing) $40,000/tool at 400k units/tool $0.10

Total Direct Cost

Marketing $20,000/year at 100k units/year $0.20

Development Costs $25,000/year at 100k units/year $0.25

Staffing Overhead (Overtime, Employees) $200,000/year at 100k units/year $2.00

Total Unit Cost $17.11

Table 5. Total Unit Cost

The total cost of a single unit is $17.11. The team set the retail price of the generator with nothermometer, at forty dollars. This cost of forty dollars is lower than the maximum retail price offifty dollars. Based on this retail price the profit per unit will be $22.89. At 100K units/year thecompany is set to profit $2,289,000/year. Table 6 below shows both the profit per year and thecash out flow by year. The different cash flows are the sums of the fixed and total costs.Furthermore, these values along with a rate were used to create a net present value. The NPV,located in Table 7, shows the net present value over a four year span. The results from the NPVgive the team confidence that this product will be economically successful. However, thisanalysis does not include the addition of an electronic thermometer that runs off the generatedelectrical power. This thermometer will not only increase the cost of production, but it will alsoincrease the retail price. Even with an increase in the retail price, the team plans to keep theproduct below the $50 limit. Moreover, the team expects a similar profit margin because boththe increase in production price and retail price will balance out.


15/34

Page 15 of34

Price Specifics

Selling Price $40 NPV

Profit $22.89 Cash Flow

Profit/ Year at 100kunits/year $2,289,000.00 t value

(Cash in- Cashout)/(1+.10)^t

Cash Out Flow 0 -$385,000.00

Initial Cost $385,000 1 $1,858,181.82

First Year $245,000 2 $1,689,256.20

Second Year $245,000 3 $1,535,687.45

Third Year $245,000 4 $1,396,079.50

Fourth Year $245,000 Total $6,094,204.97

Table 6. Price and Cash Out Flows Table 7. Net Present Value

5.7 Calculations

The team used calculations to determine that an impulse turbine, specifically a Pelton wheel,

would satisfy the problem description. Additionally, the team used the calculations to evaluatethe power generation, and got a value around 24 V. All of the calculations the team did are inAppendix E.

5.8 Test Procedure

The team plans to conduct tests to determine how well various aspects of the faucet poweredgenerator work. In total, there will be three test that will help the team check the operation of thegears at high speeds, determine the rotation speed, determine power generation, and determinewhether nine or ten buckets should be used. First, there will be a test to ensure that the gears stayinterlocked and spinning at high speeds. The team plans to attach the alpha prototype to thefaucet. Then, the team will incrementally increase the water speed and observe the gear

operation. The team will make notes on what is occurring at the different water speeds todetermine if there is a speed where the system will fail. If so, the team will determine how toprevent such failure from occurring and modify the prototype. Second, the team will conduct atest to determine the rotation speed. The team plans to remove the front face of the prototype anduse a tachometer to determine the rotation speed. The water speed will be incrementallyincreased and the rotation speed will be measured at each step. The data will be compiled into aplot to find the optimal water speed that will give the team the desired number of rotations. Next,the team will test the power generation. The team plans on attaching the prototype to a DDM.Once again, the water speed will be increased incrementally, and the power generation will bemeasured with the DDM. The team will take the data and compile it into a plot, which will givethe team an idea of the minimum water speed for the required power generation. Moreover, the

team will be able to see if the device is capable of meeting the power requirements specified inthe problem description. Overall, the team plans to conduct all three tests twice. The final designthe team chose implements a ten bucket Pelton wheel; however, the team wanted toquantitatively determine if the correct decision was made. The team has built both a nine and aten bucket wheel. Each wheel will be put through the three tests to determine which oneperforms better. If the team is correct in choosing the ten bucket design, the team will not makeany refinements in the number of buckets used in the final concept. On the other hand, if theteam learns that nine buckets is better, the team will make revisions to the final concept. In


16/34

Page 16 of34

addition, the data the team records from the tests will be used to correct and verity thecalculations. A major factor in the calculations is the rotation speed of wheel, which is currentlyonly an estimate based on the outflow velocity of the nozzle, but a more precise value for therotation speed will give the team a more accurate set of calculations. Overall, all of these testswill help the team refine the design and calculations while testing to see if the product satisfies

the customer needs established earlier.

6. ConclusionAs of now, the team is on schedule with the proposed Gantt chart. During the early

planning process, the team conducted extensive research on the function and application ofdifferent turbines. The team used preliminary calculations to determine that a Pelton wheelwould be used in the final concept. As seen in the concept selection section, the team decided tocontinue with a ten bucket Pelton wheel in order to optimize the rotation speed. In addition, byoptimizing the rotation speed, the team will be able to generate the highest possible power. Aftersome preliminary testing the team found that to produce the minimum voltage of 1.5 V the motorneeds to rotate at a minimum of 1600 rpm. The team has decided to use gears to achieve the

desired rotational velocity. However, all of the preliminary calculations and testing were refinedlater in the design process.Currently, the team has finished the detailed level design phase and is entering the testing

and refinement phase. In both the system and detail level design phase, the team moved forwardwith one concept based on the results from concept selection. The team made revisions as neededto the design in order to optimize material usage, power generation, and aesthetics. The team alsorevised the calculations. Based on the new calculations, the team is using a gear ratio of 1:8.33 togenerate approximately 24 V. The team has prepared dimensioned drawings of the finalassembly which can be found in Appendix F. The most recent accomplishment of the team iscreating an alpha prototype at the Learning Factory. The team is also currently testing theprototype to determine the reliability and rotation speed. Further testing will be done during the

week, where the team plans to find and revise any problems that arise.Furthermore, the team expects there will be no changes to the Gantt chart. The team has aworking prototype and will be able to continue with the testing and refinement phase. If the testsreveal that changes need to be made to the design, the team is ready to alter the model anddrawings as needed. The team should be allowed to continue with this project because the teamhas successfully met deadlines and exceeded the requirements set at the beginning. For example,the team was required to generate at least 1.5 Volts and the team has calculated a powergeneration of 24 V. Along the same lines, the team is currently $10 below the maximum retailprice, which gives the product an edge over competitors. The team is excited and motivated tocontinue working towards a successful final product. Overall, the team is able to work welltogether to complete tasks in a timely manner while never compromising the quality of the

product.


17/34

Page 17 of34

References

[1] Sylvania Online Store. http://www.sylvaniaonlinestore.com/p-54-ecolight-water-powered-shower-light.aspx. 06 Apr. 2010.[2] TotoUSA. http://www.totousa.com/Default.aspx?tabid=179. 06 Apr. 2010.

[3]EnviroGagdet. http://www.envirogadget.com/lamps-and-lights/lighting-for-your-swimming-pool-powered-by-water/. 06 Apr. 2010.

[4] Development of a Positive Displacement Micro-Hydro Turbine. Yokohama National.JSMEInternational Journal. 2006, Vol. 49. 01 Apr. 2010.

[5]McMaster Carr. http://www.mcmaster.com/#plastics/=6qqv46. 18 Apr. 2010

[6]McMaster Carr. http://www.mcmaster.com/#aluminum/=6qquva. 18 Apr. 2010

[7] McMaster Carr.http://www.mcmaster.com/#plastic-gears/=6rdlm8. 18 Apr. 2010

[8] McMaster Carr.http://www.mcmaster.com/#rotary-shafts/=6rdmyf. 18 Apr. 2010

[9] Watts Company.http://www.watts.com/pro/_productsFull.asp?pid=6399&ref=1. 18 Apr.2100

[10] Stock Drive Products. https://sdp-si.com/eStore/Direct.asp?GroupID=84. 06 Apr. 2010.

[11]Stock Drive Products. https://sdp-si.com/eStore/Direct.asp?GroupID=207. 06 Apr. 2010.

[12]Jameco. http://www.jameco.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?langId=-1&productId=238473&catalogId=10001&freeText=238473&app.products.maxperpage=15&storeId=10001&search_type=jamecoall&ddkey=http:StoreCatalogDrillDownView. 06 Apr. 2010.

[13] McMaster-Carr. http://www.mcmaster.com/#stainless-steel/=6rfcxc. 18 Apr. 2010.

[14]McMaster-Carr. http://www.mcmaster.com/#electrical-wire-cable-and-cords/=6rfdr0. 06Apr. 2010.

[15]McMaster-Carr. http://www.mcmaster.com/#barbed-hose-fittings/=6rff76. 06 Apr. 2010.

[16]Listo Inc. http://www.listo.com/plastic.htm. 18 Apr. 2010.

[17] Dragon Jewel Inc. http://www.dragonjewelinc.com/home4.htm. 18 Apr. 2010.

[18] Spillier. United States Patent 6,036,333United States Patent and Trademark Office, Mar. 14, 2000. 29 Mar. 2010.


18/34

Page 18 of34

[19] Cummings. United States Patent 1,635,820United States Patent and Trademark Office, July 12, 1927. 29 Mar. 2010.

[20] Rossi. United States Patent 6,443,697

United States Patent and Trademark Office, Sep. 3, 2002. 29 Mar. 2010.


19/34

Page 19 of34

Appendix A

Team Roles:Program ManagerRonak PatelFinancial OfficerQuinn Markel

Record KeeperJon TakoskySafety OfficerQuinn Markel

See Attached Gantt Chart

*The Gantt Chart did not attach when we tried to we have attached it as an extra document for

your reference


20/34

Page 20 of34

Appendix B

Q. What is your opinion on a faucet powered generator?A. a) Good idea

b) Bad idea

c) Indifferent

Q. If you could have an accessory by your sink that runs off electrical power what would it be?A. a) Light

b) Water thermometer (Displays water temperature)c) Motion sensor Soap Dispenserd) Other

Q. If you selected other can you please specify what the other is?

Q. Would you purchase a faucet-powered generator?

A. a) Yes, for sureb) Maybe, it depends on pricec) No, I have no use for it

A total of 10 people were interviewed and the results of the interview are below in Tables B.1-3.

Age Group Good Idea (%) Bad Idea (%)

21+ 70 30

Table B.1 Interview results for Question 1

Age Group Light (%) Thermometer (%) Soap Dispenser (%) Other (%)21+ 30 50 20 0


Age Group Yes (%) Maybe, price dependent (%) No (%)

21+ 50 20 30



21/34

Page 21 of34

Appendix C

HighPerform

anceSafety Reliability

Ease ofUse

Appearance

Maintainnormalfaucet

operation

Inexpensive

HighPerformance

1/1 1/3 1/2 2/1 4/1 1/3 2/1

Safety 3/1 1/1 2/1 4/1 4/1 2/1 3/1

Reliability 2/1 1/2 1/1 2/1 3/1 1/2 2/1

Ease of Use 1/2 1/4 1/2 1/1 2/1 1/3 2/1

Appearance 1/4 1/4 1/3 1/2 1/1 1/3 2/1

Maintainnormalfaucetoperation

3/1 1/2 2/1 3/1 3/1 1/1 2/1

Inexpensive 1/2 1/3 1/2 1/2 1/2 1/2 1/1Table C.1 First step of AHP Method

HighPerform


Ease ofUse

Appearance


operation

Inexpensive

HighPerformance

1.00 0.33 0.50 2.00 4.00 0.33 2.00

Safety 3.00 1.00 2.00 4.00 4.00 2.00 3.00

Reliability 2.00 0.50 1.00 2.00 3.00 0.50 2.00

Ease of Use 0.50 0.25 0.50 1.00 2.00 0.33 2.00

Appearance 0.25 0.25 0.33 0.50 1.00 0.33 2.00


3.00 0.50 2.00 3.00 3.00 1.00 2.00

Inexpensive 0.50 0.33 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 1.00

10.25 3.17 6.83 13.00 17.50 5.00 14.00

Table C.2 Second step of AHP Method


22/34

Page 22 of34

HighPerform


Ease ofUse

Appearance


operation

Inexpensive

HighPerformance

0.09760.105

30.0732 0.1538 0.2286 0.0667 0.1429

Safety0.2927

0.3158

0.2927 0.3077 0.2286 0.4000 0.2143

Reliability0.1951

0.1579

0.1463 0.1538 0.1714 0.1000 0.1429

Ease of Use0.0488

0.0789

0.0732 0.0769 0.1143 0.0667 0.1429

Appearance0.0244

0.0789

0.0488 0.0385 0.0571 0.0667 0.1429


0.29270.157

90.2927 0.2308 0.1714 0.2000 0.1429

Inexpensive0.0488

0.1053

0.0732 0.0385 0.0286 0.1000 0.0714

Table C.3 Final Step of AHP Method

Customer Needs Weights

High Performance 12

Safety 29

Reliability 15

Ease of Use 9

Appearance 7

Maintain normal faucet operation 21

Inexpensive 7

Table C.4 Weighted Customer Needs


23/34

Page 23 of34

Appendix D

Figure D.1 Patent 6,036,333


24/34

Page 24 of34

Figure D.2 Patent 1,635,820


25/34

Page 25 of34

Figure D. 3 Patent 6,443,697


26/34

Page 26 of34

Appendix E

General Calculations:

Specific Speed Calculations:


27/34

Page 27 of34

According to the calculations, the team needs to use an Impulse turbine.

Power Generation Calculations:

According to Appendix G, the equation for measured voltage as a function of rotation speed is:y = 0.0009x + 0.0388y is the Voltagex is the rotation speed in rpm

y = 0.0009(26398.3917) + .0388y = 23.797 V


28/34

Page 28 of34

Appendix F

Figure F.1 Front View of the Assembly

Figure F.2 Top View of Assembly


29/34

Page 29 of34

Table F.3 Drawing of the Pelton Wheel


30/34

Page 30 of34

Figure F.4 Detail Drawing of Buckets


31/34

Page 31 of34

Figure F.5 Drawing of the Pelton Wheel Housing


32/34

Page 32 of34

Figure F.6 Drawing of Gear Housing


33/34

Page 33 of34

Appendix G

Figure G.1 Voltage vs. RPM graph for the motor

y = 0.0009x + 0.0388

R = 0.9976

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

Voltage(V)

RPM's

Motor rpm's vs. Output voltage


34/34

Appendix H

Assembly

Component Quantity Handling Time Insertion Time Total Time

Turbine 1 5 4 9

Shaft 2 2 5 14

Gears 4 4 5 36

Motor 1 3 6 9

Wiring 1 2 6 8

Total Time

(secs) 76

Cost at $50/hour $1.06

Table H.1 Cost of Assembly

Documents

Team 2 Detailed Design Report