Irrigation System

# Irrigation System

Télécharger la présentation

## Irrigation System

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
##### Presentation Transcript

1. Irrigation System ME 414: Team 4 Chris Cook Matt Griffey Jason Colgan Breanne Walters Jeremy Johnson

2. Provide a efficient watering system One inch coverage Layout area as shown Electric Utility Cost Water Waste Specifications

3. Very Versatile Head Pressure Range with Large Radii Range Under \$10 per Head Adjustable Radii Adjustable Heads for Required Pressures Good Range for Precipitation Rates Hunter PGJ Rotor Sprinkler

4. Sprinkler Head Layout

5. AFT Verification by Zones • Each Zone was modeled in AFT • 4 Zones • Common radii or general area • General Components set with 52.5 K value • End Components Modeled with Sprinkler • Hunter Professionals Gave Exit Flow Area • Assumed 60psi • PVC-Gauge 40 Pipe with Default Resistance

6. Example Zone 1

7. Combined AFT Results • AFT was run for all 4 Zones • Overall Pressure Drops • Concerned about pressure at each Head • All pressures were in check for each Head

8. Overall System Results

9. Questions

10. ME 414: Project 2: Tube and Shell Heat Exchanger Design Jason Colgan, Chris Cook, Matt Griffey, Jeremy Johnson, Breanne Walters

11. Design Parameters • Remove 1.2 Megawatts of power • Process Water • Inlet 90ºC • Outlet 40ºC • City water • Inlet during summer 25ºC • Optimal Length 4-6 meters

12. Original Design Parameters

13. Variable Reduction • From previous iterations these nine were the variables that had the greatest effect on Weight, Length, Q, and ∆P’s

14. Main Effect Plots

15. Pareto Charts for Optimization • Shell side pressure drop- Shell I/D had the greatest effect • Heat Exchanger overall weight- Shell I/D and Tube Length • Tube pressure drop- Mass flow rate through the tubes, Shell I/D and Tube Length

16. Optimization Results

17. Adjusted Optimized Results

18. Comparison of Results • The optimized design- lower pressure drop and a shorter length than the original but heat transfer rate was too low • The adjusted optimized design- lowest pressure drop, medium length, and heat transfer rate off by 4% but highest mass • Initial design- closest heat transfer rate, lowest mass, highest pressure drop, but longest length

19. Conclusions • Depending on the most stringent requirements two of these designs are valid • Initial Design • Closer Heat transfer rate- 1.205 MW • Longer Length- 5.15 m • Higher Pressure Drops-∆Pt= 77.21 Pa ,∆Ps= 57.58Pa • Lower Mass- 1653.42 kg • Adjusted Optimized Design • Close Heat Transfer Rate- 1.15 MW • Shorter Length- 4.4m • Lower Pressure Drop- ∆Pt= 38.92 Pa ,∆Ps= 37.55 Pa • Higher Mass- 1945.79 kg