The Pennsylvania State UniversityDepartment of Mechanical and Nuclear Engineering

2/21/2012

Yes – Intellectual Property AgreementYes – Non-Disclosure Agreement

Christopher ZerpheyDalton TalliaDerek M. HallMarin TolaFrank Wolff

Executive Summary

Large industrial pumps are extensively relied on in many industrial applications. Many of these pumps require cooling of their bearing oil for uninterrupted use. The fin structure in current commercial oil cooling systems is restricted to simple configurations imposed by traditional manufacturing processes. Recent strides in additive manufacturing have reached a point where printings of metal alloy structures with widths of 0.04’’ are now possible. This recent innovation in manufacturing technology allows for novel fin design beyond the capabilities of current fabrication techniques. In addition to the increase in design possibilities, this process wastes less material. This study focuses on incorporating this new technology into the production of bearing oil heat exchanger pipe fins for large industrial pumps. A series of pipes one foot in length with novel fin designs are to be designed and printed in a bronze infused stainless steel alloy. Each pipe will be tested in a custom designed Test Rig and compared to a standard pipe of an identical material.

The Test Rig will consist of a hot oil reservoir, maintained at a constant temperature of 200-300oF. The Test Rig will include temperature and pressure sensors on either side of a detachable foot long heat exchanger section that will be exposed to forced air convection. Oil will flow through the test section at 0.3 gallons per minute (gpm). The placement of the sensors will allow for accurate measurements of changing temperature and pressure across the test section. The collected data will allow for correlations to be derived comparing the designed fin geometries with existing extended surface designs. The data collected from these sensors will be used to determine the effectiveness of the printed designs.

1

Table of Contents

Executive Summary.....................................................................................................................1Table of Contents........................................................................................................................2Nomenclature...............................................................................................................................31.0 Introduction............................................................................................................................4

1.1 Initial Problem Statement.....................................................................................................41.2 Objectives............................................................................................................................4

2.0 Customer Needs....................................................................................................................52.1 Gathering Customer Input....................................................................................................52.2 Weighing Customer Needs..................................................................................................5

3.0 External Search......................................................................................................................63.1 Patents.................................................................................................................................63.2 Existing Products.................................................................................................................8

4.0 Engineering Specifications..................................................................................................84.1 Establishing Target Specifications.......................................................................................84.2 Relating Specifications to Customer Needs.........................................................................9

5.0 Concept Generation and Selection....................................................................................105.1 Problem Clarification..........................................................................................................105.2 Concept Generation...........................................................................................................115.3 Concept Selection..............................................................................................................15

6.0 System Level Design...........................................................................................................196.1 Test Rig..............................................................................................................................196.2 Heat Exchanger Design.....................................................................................................24

7.0 Special Topics......................................................................................................................247.1 Preliminary Economic Analysis- Budget and Vendor Purchase Information.....................247.2 Project Management..........................................................................................................257.3 Risk Plan and Safety..........................................................................................................267.4 Ethics Statement................................................................................................................297.5 Environmental Statement...................................................................................................297.6 Communication and Coordination with Sponsor................................................................30

References.................................................................................................................................31Appendix....................................................................................................................................32

A1: Deliverables Agreement....................................................................................................32A2: Gantt Chart........................................................................................................................33A3: Resumes............................................................................................................................34A4: Miscellaneous Figures.......................................................................................................39A5: Notes.................................................................................................................................41

2

3

Nomenclature

A: AreaAf: Fin AreaCp: Specific Heatdi: Inner Diameterdo: Outer Diameterη: Fin EfficiencyΔT: Temperature Differenceg: Gravitational Accelerationgpm: Gallons Per MinuteGr: Grashoff Numberh: Convection heat transfer coefficientL: lengthk: Thermal Conductivityṁ: Mass Flow RateNu: Nusselt NumberPr: Prandtl Numberq: Rate of heat transferq”: Heat fluxRa: Raleigh NumberRe: Reynolds NumberŘ: Insulating ValueRh: Hot side Convection ResistanceRi: Insulation ResistanceRo: Cold Side ResistanceRp: Pipe Resistance

τ: Fin ThicknessU: Overall heat transfer coefficientβ: Coefficient for Thermal Expansionµ: Viscosityν: Kinematic Viscosity

4

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Initial Problem Statement

Nearly all premature bearing failures in large pumps result from two common problem (Burge, 2010). Either the lubricant overheats or contaminants enter into the lubrication system (Burge, 2010). Therefore, effective and continuous cooling of bearing lubrication is an integral part of continuous operation of industrial pumps. One frequent application used to improve heat transfer is the fabrication of extended surfaces, also known as fins, along the tubing of a heat transfer device (Incropera, Dewitt, Bergman, & Lavine, 2006). However, the current fin structure in commercial oil cooling system tubes are limited by traditional manufacturing processes. By implementing a process known as additive manufacturing, fin designs can be improved and fabricated into lattices that would otherwise be impossible. Additive manufacturing differs from current manufacturing techniques as this technology builds models through layering a process (Gibson, Rosen, & Stucker, 2010). This layering process builds a model from the bottom up to produce the desired item rather than removing materials to make the model like traditional machining (Gibson et al, 2010). This layering approach is fundamentally different from current fabrication techniques and allows for intricate and complex designs both inside and outside a heat exchanger tube with no residual materials. Therefore, the primary focus of the project is to develop a new fluid to air heat exchanger pipe using additive manufacturing. Several designs are to be produced with a focus on complex lattice structures and novel fin designs. Three of these pipe designs will be printed and tested in a custom made Test Rig; the results of which will benchmark the performance of the new designs with current methods of heat exchange. The deliverables are the printed pipes and a Test Rig capable of measuring the temperature and pressure drop across different pipes in a fluid to air heat exchange.

1.2 Objectives

Harnessing the unique capabilities of additive manufacturing for fin design provides the challenge of maximizing a pipe’s heat transfer capabilities without imposing a large pressure drop within the system. Formulating a design that achieves these two conflicting requirements requires diligent analysis of the physical implications attached to adding additional fin structures. Therefore, a compromise between these two requirements will need to be made in order to construct the most effective design for industrial applications. The main objective is identifying what is an acceptable amount of pressure lost per unit of heat transferred. This challenge will be resolved with a thorough review of the fundamental laws of heat and mass transfer within in pipes. Another complication to be addressed is the construction of a Test Rig capable of measuring heat loss and pressure drops from each printed pipe. To do so in an accurate manner requires sensors placed in locations that minimize the uncertainty of the readings. As a result, another objective will be to design a Test Rig were measurements taken are representative of the pipe design’s heat transfer effectiveness. This can be accomplished by conducting a review of the sensors available and selecting a sensor that best meets the customer’s needs.

5

2.0 Customer Needs

2.1 Gathering Customer Input

At the beginning of the project, the only customer input was the Project Summary that Flowserve had provided during the Project Kick-Off. This summary stated that Flowserve was interested in additive manufacturing technology to produce a novel heat exchanger design that was not possible to manufacture using conventional machining. The summary also stated that the design team will have to fabricate and assemble a Test Rig to execute experiments to determine heat exchanger efficiency. After attending the on-site visit to Flowserve and meeting with the project coordinator Andrew Schevets, a better understanding of the project was achieved. Mr. Schevets would like to use the company ProMetal, which has the capability to “print” our new heat exchanger designs. Additionally, Mr. Schevets is looking for a creative and unconventional approach since additive manufacturing is new to industry with unknown potential.

With much of the projects requirements undefined, the team used the first several weeks and team meetings to come up with questions and options for the project. Some of the initial considerations can be seen in the team notes in A6 of the Appendix. For example, on Tuesday January 24th, approximately one week into the project, the team used time in class to discuss the possibilities of cross flow versus counter flow. Additionally, the team set out to define a velocity of the fluid and a mass flow rate. These possibilities were discussed, documented, and later discussed with the sponsor the next day at a Flowserve site visit. This is just one example of how the group went about turning discussion into an identification of customer needs. The group had a lot of freedom due to the lack of initial constraints and requirements of the system. This freedom allowed the group to brainstorm ideas that were later discussed with and rated by the sponsor. Additionally, this pushed the group to look at all possible system designs before ruling anything out with the sponsors input.

Through these discussions with Mr. Schevets it was determined that the early part of the project schedule be dedicated to designing and constructing a Test Rig. The Test Rig needs to heat and maintain an oil temperature of 200-300°F. In addition, the Test Rig has to accurately measure the temperature drop across the fabricated heat exchanger pipes. A secondary emphasis was placed on the ability to measure the pressure drop across the heat exchanger. The budget for the Test Rig was stressed to be as low as possible while maintaining accurate test results so that multiple heat exchanger pieces could be fabricated within the budget. Mr. Schevets requested that a best guess estimate should be determined for the cost of the Test Rig and reported to him at week four of the project. From this report, Mr. Schevets could determine if additional funds were needed. With all of the initial requirements identified and defined the group had the necessary information to progress. With the input from the sponsor a list of customer needs had been created which allowed for the group to progress into the next portion of the project.

2.2 Weighing Customer Needs

Weighting the customer needs is an important aspect of the customer needs assessment process as well as the design process. Weighting needs is used to decide what aspects of the customers’ needs are of the most important and how these needs can be met in the design process. In order to decide what aspects of the project are of greatest concern, the team utilized an unbiased means of ranking customer needs. The team first discussed and ranked the importance of the customer needs from 1 to 3 (see Table 1) as interpreted from the discussions by the team members. The team used the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) to rank the customer needs. The AHP is a

6

means of comparing each need by numerical values; 0.5 for less importance, 1.0 for equal importance, and 2 for high importance. This matrix is tabulated in Table 2. The results allowed the team to focus on the most important customer needs in the concept generation process, as well as establish scoring criteria during the concept selection process to be discussed in Section 5.3

Table 1: Customer Needs Hierarchy Ranked by Importance for the Test Rig

No. Need Importance

1 Test Rig Operates Safely 1

2 Accurate Temperature Reading across the Heat Exchanger 1

3 Allow Analysis of Data Obtained from the Experiment 2

4 Capable of Handling Different Size Heat Exchangers 2

5 Repeatable Test Results 1

6 Low Maintenance Between Testing Operations 3

7 Able to be Transported 3

8 Accurate Pressure Reading across the Heat Exchanger 2

9 Low Test Rig Production Cost 1

Table 2: Analytical Hierarchy Process of Identified Specifications for the Test RigCriteria A B C D E F G H I Total Weight

A 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 0.50 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 13.50 0.14 A = Safety-Test Rig OperationB 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 13.00 0.14 B = Accurate Temp. ReadingC 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 11.50 0.12 C = Allows analysis of resulting dataD 0.50 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.50 2.00 2.00 1.00 0.50 9.00 0.10 D = Capable of meeting variable demandsE 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 14.00 0.15 E = RepeatabilityF 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.50 5.50 0.06 F = Low MaintenceG 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.50 5.50 0.06 G = Able to be TransportedH 0.50 0.50 0.50 1.00 0.50 2.00 2.00 1.00 0.50 8.50 0.09 H = Accurate Pressure ReadingI 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 13.00 0.14 I = Low Cost

93.50 1∑

3.0 External Search

3.1 Patents

The patent search was dedicated to fin design as this topic was the highest importance for the sponsor. To gain a better understanding of the current state of novel heat exchanger technology, a patent search was conducted. In 2000, U.S patent number 6668915 B1 claims to improve the value of heat transfer per unit pressure drop of the flowing fluid resulting from each fin (Materna, 2003). This approach differs from conventional fin design as the fins are not uniformly spaced throughout the heat transfer structure (Materna, 2003). Figure 1 clarifies the geometric details of this non-uniform fin distribution. Improving the heat transfer per unit of pressure drop

7

is one approach that could be used in our project. In addition, one of our fin patterns could expand from this design with incremental innovations to this concept.

Figure 1 (a-b): U.S Patent 6668915 B1 Non-Uniform Fin Design.

Another patent researched was United States Patent number 7,866,377B2, which is titled, “Method of Using Minimal Surfaces and Minimal Skeletons to Make Heat Exchanger Components”. Essentially, this patent goes over a type of additive manufacturing called stereolithography. By generating a stereolithography file the user can repeat two-dimensional patterns to produce a three-dimensional surface by depositing layers of material onto the top surface of a base (Slaughter, 2011). This concept is visualized in Figure 2. The inventor states that the process can reduce surface area, reduce manufacturing cost, improve efficiency, and provide good flow properties in the heat exchanger through the use of an additive process (Slaughter, 2011).

Figure 2: US Patent 7,866,377-B2 Heat Exchanger from Additive Manufacturing

These characteristics show that additive manufacturing process is effective and encourage engineers to use them in heat exchanger design. The patent goes over a few possible ways to use stereolithography in the design of heat exchangers that minimize overall size without significantly compromising performance. Contrastingly, the group looks to maximize surface area with additive manufacturing to increase the heat exchanger effectiveness substantially.

United States Patent number US 7,871,578,578B2 is titled, “Micro Heat Exchanger with Thermally Conductive Porous Network” and outlines the mesh and lattice method of internal

8

heat exchanger design. In the background section of the patent many assertions can be noted that directly apply to the Flowserve project. One of these assertions is that it is desirable to reduce the size of the heat exchanger for a given rate of heat exchange. In other words, as the surface area-to-volume ratio increases, the contact area between the pipe’s fin structures and surrounding medium increases (Schmidt, 2011). The patent goes on to lay claim to several porous networks and designs that the inventor has outlined. These concepts will be considered when developing the group’s designs for heat exchangers.

3.2 Existing Products, Test Rig

The first desire of the customer was that the team quickly fabricates a Test Rig. With this as our primary objective, the team researched existing test rigs that served a similar function. One existing product that functioned under similar conditions as our project required was currently operating in The University Park Heat Transfer Laboratory. The Heat Transfer Laboratory Test Rig is used for heat exchanger experiments where students analyze the efficiency of enhanced concentric tube and shell & tube heat exchangers. This gave the team ideas on how temperature and flow rates were measured in existing products. The lab Test Rig has a hot side temperature of 180°F and a ½” diameter piping in which they used a flow rate of 0.3gpm This existing test rig’s flow rate, temperature and oval dimensions were used as a basis to estimate reasonable values within our Test Rig design.

A second existing product that was used as a source of design concepts was a heat exchanger testing project that had been done between Penn State and Flowserve in 2009. In the report “Design and Testing of Oil Cooling Systems for a Boiler Feed Water Pump Bearing Housing” the previous Flowserve group had similar conditions of oil temperature and flow rate that our group is currently working with. Analyzing this document provided our team with reasonable values for the thermal losses expected from the Test Rig reservoir. In addition, it was recently decided that parts from this project are now being sent for use in the construction of our Test Rig.

3.3 Existing Products, Heat Exchangers

This section is part of phase two and will be updated in the DSR.

4.0 Engineering Specifications

4.1 Establishing Target Specifications

The team established target specifications based on customer needs and Test Rig requirements that are critical to acquiring accurate data and a low price. The initial Test Rig metrics are listed in Table 3 below. Although these target specifications are subject to change as further progress is made on the detailed design of the Test Rig, the team believes the metrics outlined in Table 3 are fully attainable based on the requirements for the project.

The sponsor and our team have agreed to an upper limit for the price of the Test Rig. Test Rig Production was set at $500 because the sponsor would like to test as many heat exchanger designs as possible within the $1000 project budget. It should be noted that ProMetal estimates each heat exchanger tube will cost $300. The Heating Element Output was selected to have at least 1000 watts so that there is sufficient power to overcome thermal losses from the reservoir, tubing, and heat exchanger. An insulation R value of greater than 2 was chosen to minimize

9

losses through the reservoir walls. A more detailed explanation of thermal losses by the system can be seen in Section 6.0. With respect to the flow rate, the sponsor did not provide a specific flow rate for the oil. Thus the team looked at the Penn State Heat Transfer Laboratory Test Rig to determine an appropriate flow rate since it operated under similar conditions. Based on a 0.3 gpm flow rate a storage capacity of greater than six liters was chosen. This size will have a large volumetric ratio of stored hot oil with respect to the returning cold oil thus maintaining a stable reservoir temperature. It would take 5 minutes for the oil to be completely recirculated within the system. The temperature and pressure measurements across our heat exchanger are critical requirements to determine the heat exchanger effectiveness. A less than 2 percent accuracy error was chosen to reduce the compounding effect in error caused from using collected data in multiple equations. In addition, the two percent error correlates to accuracy limitations on commercial temperature sensors as shown in A4 of the Appendix.

Table 3: Target Engineering Specifications

No. Metric Units Value

1 Test Rig Storage Capacity L > 6

2 Test Rig Production Cost US$ ≈ 500

3 ΔT Measurement Uncertainty % < 2

4 Test Rig Heating Element Output W ≥ 1000

5 Test Rig Flow Rate gpm 0.20-0.50

6 ΔP Measurement Uncertainty % < 2

7 Data Reading / Yes

8 Test Rig Insulation R >2

9 Simplified Design / Yes

4.2 Relating Specifications to Customer Needs

The Needs-Metrics matrix in Table 4 details how each customer need is being fulfilled by the metrics shown in Table 3. It can be seen that all the customer needs are being meet by at least one metric. The Safety and Repeatability Needs contain the most amounts of metrics which demonstrates that the highest rated customer needs are being addressed.

Table 4: Needs-Metrics Matrix for the Test Rig

10

Need Met

ric

Tes

t R

ig S

tora

ge C

apac

ity

Tes

t R

ig P

rod

uct

ion

Cos

t

ΔT

Mea

sure

men

t U

nce

rtai

nty

Tes

t R

ig H

eati

ng

Ele

men

t ou

tpu

t

Tes

t R

ig F

low

Rat

e

ΔP

Mea

sure

men

t U

nce

rtai

nty

Dat

a R

ead

ing

Tes

t R

ig I

nsu

lati

on

Sim

pli

fied

Des

ign

Test Rig Operates Safely * * *Accurate Temperature Reading *Allow Analysis of Data Obtained from the Experiment *Capable Handling Different Size Heat Exchangers * *Repeatable of Test Results * *Low Maintenance Between Testing Operations *Able to be Transported *Accurate Pressure Reading *Low Test Rig Production Cost * * * *

5.0 Concept Generation and Selection

5.1 Problem Clarification

In the current stage of the project our team’s focus is towards constructing the Test Rig. The following constraints on the Test Rig were developed between the sponsor and the design team. The sponsor and design team agreed on requirements of a flow rate of 0.3 gpm and a hot working fluid of 200-300°F. In addition, the rig needs to monitor the temperature and pressure drop across a foot long heat exchanger with a ½” internal diameter. Forced convection will also be applied over the exterior of the heat exchanger, the temperature and velocity of air will be monitored by an anemometer with an integrated temperature sensor. Refer to Figure 3 for a black box model that separates the Test Rig into its fundamental components.

With respect to the heat exchanger design, our goal is to maximize the amount heat loss across the heat exchanger by making use of the metal printing technology’s ability to produce complex fin geometries. In future reports we will have made further progress towards the design of heat exchangers and augment the statement of work as needed. Figure 4 shows a block box model on how energy is transferred out of the heat exchanger.

11

Figure 3: Functional Decomposition Diagram of the Test Rig

Figure 4 Functional Decomposition Diagram for the Heat Exchanger

5.2 Concept Generation

During the concept generation phase, the team brainstormed concepts for possible solutions for each of the identified sub-components of the Test Rig which includes: tubing, substructure, heat source, oil reservoir, oil pump, pressure sensors and temperature sensors. Concepts for these components where compiled in a morphological chart and listed in Table 5. Potential solutions were sketched to visualize these concepts and encourage new ideas. Figure 5 illustrates the concepts for heating the oil while Figure 6 addresses how to divert the oil flow. Figure 7 illustrates some design patterns for the Test Rig layout.

12

Table 5: Morphological chart for sub-sectionsConcepts

Tubing CopperFlexible High Temperature

Tubing

Stainless Steel

Mix Flex and Metal

Heat sourceExternal Heating Element

External GasSubmersible

Heating Element

Substructure Material

Made of Metal

Made of Wood

Made of Wood with

Metal Coating

PumpMechanical

PumpElectrical

PumpHot Tube or Pond Pump

Automotive Pumps

Pressure Measurement

MonometerPressure

ProbeOil Gauge

Temperature Measurement

Thermocouple Inside Tubing

Thermocouple Outside Tubing

Infrared Thermistor

Figure 5: Concepts for Heating the Oil Figure 6: Concepts for Tubing Network

13

Figure 7: Concepts for Test Rig Layout

With respect to pump selection, many different pump concepts were explored in order to find the best match to the system requirements. Before the sponsor disclosed the fluid and temperature constraints, lower priced plastic pumps, priced below $50, were an attractive solution because they could be purchased at a local distributor such as Home Depot or Lowes. For this idea, fountain and pond pumps were researched to see if they could provide the necessary flow at a low price. After the temperature constraints of 200-300°F were set, the specifications for many products of that nature were found to be unable to operate in the assumed temperature range. Therefore, it was necessary to move to heavy-duty metal pumps. Grainger, an industrial supplier, was used to look for pumps that could handle the necessary temperature range. The Grainger search provided many pumps that could work, but revealed that most were rated for much higher flow rates than necessary and could not reach the upper limit of our temperature range. Various pumps from the Grainger search can be seen in Table 6. None of these pumps sufficiently suited the system needs, so an additional search was conducted for more options.

14

Table 6: Pump Specifications from Grainger Search

Pump Name

DAYTON Rotary Gear Pump Head,

3/8 In., 1/3 HP

TACO Pump, Circulator,

1/25hp

BELL & GOSSETT

Pump, Circulator,

1/25hp

TACO Circulator

Pump, 1/20 HP, 1.1 Amps

Price ($) 198.75 130.70 138.60 118.80Horsepower (HP) 0.33 0.04 0.04 0.05Head (ft.) 7.5 9 15.00 21.00Max Flow (gpm) 7.00 21.00 20.60 17.00Temp (°F) 210 240 240 230Min. gpm @ Head (Ft.) n/a 4 @ 9 10 @ 8 10 @ 10

The second Internet search provided better options that more closely suited the Test Rig’s new requirements. A pump series made by the producer Grunfos was found to have various flow and head ranges that could suit the needs required by the Test Rig. Additionally, these pumps were cheaper than the pumps found in the initial search while still working in a similar temperature range. To supplement the Grunfos pumps, a search on eBay, an online bidding website, was conducted. This provided an additional option as one suitable pump was found. This pump was titled “March High Temperature Pump for Brewing Home Brew” and can be seen in Table 7 along with the Grunfos pumps. Displayed in Tables 6 and 7 are only the most relevant options, as many pumps were investigated prior to narrowing down the search to the ones listed in the tables. Overall, the search for a suitable pump provided many options for the group to pick from in the concept selection phase of the project.

Table 7: Results from Grunfos and eBay Search

Pump Type

Grundfos UP15-10F Circulator

Pump (59896248)

Grunfos UP15-42F

Recirculator Pump

(59896155)

Grundfos UP15-10B5 Recirculator

Pump (59896213)

March High Temperature

Pump for Brewing

Home Brew

Grundfos UPS15-

58FRC 3-Speed

Circulator Pump w/

IFC, (59896343)

Price ($) 76 98.99 163.64 137.99 $82.00Horsepower (HP) 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04Head (ft.) 5.50 15.50 9.00 12.00 19.50Max Flow (gpm) 8.00 17.00 6.00 7.20 17.00Temp (°F) 230 230 220 250 230

15

5.3 Concept Selection

Tubing:

Our tubing layout will route hot oil from the reservoir to the pump, the oil will then travel vertically towards the testing section. After passing through the testing section the oil will return to the reservoir to repeat the process. There were multiple options that would satisfy our needs. One option was inexpensive ($1.29/foot) flexible high temperature tubing, but the high temperature specification from this manufacturer could only withstand temperatures of 140°F. Other high temperature flexible tubes, like those from Texloc were able to withstand large temperature ranges from cryogenic to 1500°F. The tubing from Garnet Midwest could withstand our required temperatures but could not be bought in small enough unit lengths for our needs. A third option would be to use common copper plumbing. Although not flexible and not as easily installed, both price and its ability to withstand temperature made it an attractive solution.

Selection for the tubing can be shown in the Table 8. The selection was made on a basis of four factors that were rated from 1-10. The highest scoring option was the copper plumbing. It is able to withstand our temperature range, inexpensive, and available through online order as well as local hardware stores.

Table 8: Concept Screening Matrix for Tubing

Tubing Selection

Tubing Type

RF67-XFC from US-hose(flexible, high

pressureSS hose)

PCSC TUBING COP 1/2ID L from Garnet Midwest(soft copper Tubing)

Generic Copper PlumbingFrom local

hardware store

Temp Range

10 6 9

Price 2 5 8

Availability

6 6 10

Installation Ease

8 8 5

Total 26 25 32

Substructure:The tubing and other components will need to be supported by a substructure. The substructure will need to be both rigid and lightweight for transportation purposes. It will also need to be able to withstand contact with high temperature oil in the event of a system malfunction. A wooden frame will satisfy these needs. A completely metal frame and sheeting would also satisfy our requirements, although at a higher cost.

16

The team then selected a wooden substructure, which will make construction simpler, without a sacrificing the structural integrity. A concern was raised that using a combustible material in a high temperature application is dangerous. The ignition temperature of wood is well above 300°F; therefore it is safe to use for this application.

Reservoir and Heating:Three different techniques were considered for heating oil in the Test Rig. While gas propane is a valuable option it was eliminated since the team would like to use the Test Rig in an indoor environment. Also, using gas propane would require additional safety requirements without any additional benefits compared to an electric heating source. A submersible heating element was chosen over an external heating element to reduce risk to personnel and excess thermal loss. Once the use of a submersible heating element was chosen three options were considered for designing the reservoir and heating housing. Option 1 consisted of buying an industrial fryer that had an adequate heating element and volume but would cost $90-120. Option 2 consisted of buying a less expensive, $25-$35, deep fryer for the heating element and constructing our own reservoir with material from the Learning Factory. A later option introduced by the sponsor was Option 3; which was a pre-made hot fluid reservoir from a 2009 Penn State - Flowserve project. The selection was made on a basis of five factors that were rated from 1-10. Selection of the reservoir and heating element is shown below in Table 9. The team selected to use pre-made hot fluid reservoir with a 1000 watt heat source from Flowserve, this will reduce the total cost of the Test Rig.

Table 9: Concept Screening Matrix for oil reservoir and heating element

Storage and Heating Selection

Option Industrial Fryer Heating Elements Flowserve Reservoir

Price 1 5 10

Heating element 7 10 5

Availability 7 8 6

Size 6 7 8

Input/Output 3 5 10

Total 24 35 39

Pressure Sensor:When it came to choosing a pressure sensor there were a few options. A regular u-tube monometer could be used, but it would create additional complications in the measurement process. Another option was a static pressure probe, which has the disadvantage of being sensitive to the orientation of flow. The best choice for pressure measurements will be a mechanical oil pressure gauge for an automobile. This type of pressure gauge has a range of 0 to 100 psi, can handle high temperatures and is accurate within two percent. This pressure range is within the operating conditions for our open flow system.

17

Selection for the pressure sensor can be shown in the Table 10 below. The selection was made on a basis of four factors that were rated from 1-10. The highest scoring option was the automotive oil pressure gauge. It is able to withstand high temperature, is inexpensive, accurate to two percent, and readily available online as well as local auto part stores.

Table 10: Concept Screening Matrix for Pressure Sensors

Pressure Sensor Selection

Sensor Type Monometer Pressure Probe Oil gauge

Temp Range 8 10 10

Price 9 5 10

Accuracy 8 9 9

Installation Ease 9 7 10

Total 34 31 39

Temperature:A variety of temperature sensors were considered for monitoring temperature change within the Test Rig. The specifications for Omega thermocouple types J, K, E and T, infrared scanners and thermistors were all researched and put into Table 11. Each option held its own merits and shortcomings. With respect to the customer’s priorities, the specifications below are rated based on accuracy being the highest priority and price being the second. The temperature range for each sensor was rated on a pass or fail basis as the Test Rig’s temperature limits are 60- 300 oF. These temperature limits originate from the highest temperature the pump models can withstand and the lowest temperature possible from the ambient temperature inside our testing location. The infrared scanner was the most expensive but it had the widest range of operating temperatures. Thermocouples had the advantage of being easy to setup and are inexpensive. The shortcoming of the thermocouple option was its accuracy. After comparing the customer needs to the differences in the specification for the three sensors, thermistors were selected as the best fit for the project.

Table 11: Temperature Sensor Concept Matrix

Temperature Sensor Selection

 Sensor Type Thermocouples Infrared Scanner Thermistor

Price 9 4 9

Accuracy 6 7 8

Temperature Range pass pass pass

Total 15 11 17

More detailed specification charts from Omega were placed in the Appendix under A4 Miscellaneous Figures. The charts in the appendix were used to formulate the sensor selection table.

18

Pump:The pump concept generation phase resulted in many potential options for the project. After narrowing down the results of the pump search, five pumps were selected for a concept screening matrix. The Grundfos pump had the cheapest price while providing a flow rate and head range within the system’s requirements. The only downside of this pump is that the maximum workable temperature of 230°F is at the lower end of our temperature range. The TACO and March High Temperature Pump both had higher temperature ranges at 240 and 250°F respectively. The TACO pump was not selected due to the overly high flow and head ranges along with its high price. The March High Temperature Pump offered for sale on eBay was at first an appealing option. However, eBay is an online auction site and the price ended up exceeding the desired budget.

Ultimately, the concept screening matrix showed that the Grundfos UP15-10F Circulator Pump was the best selection as it received the highest score as can be seen in Table 12. This matrix was completed by ranking each need on a scale from one to ten with, a ten signifying that the need was fully satisfied.

The system head loss was calculated to be 5 feet. This head loss lowers the flow rate of the Grundfos pump to one that is very close to the value that is desired. See appendix A4 for a detailed specification of the Gundfos Pump. The group had concern about approaching the maximum head of the pump. After discussing the concern with the sponsor it was determined that this pump would satisfy the Test Rigs needs

Table 12: Concept Screening Matrix for Pump Selection

Pump Selection

Pump TypeDAYTON

Rotary Gear Pump Head,

TACO Pump, Circulator

Grundfos UP15-10F Circulator

Pump, (59896248)

March High Temperature

Pump for Brewing

Home Brew

Grundfos UPS15-

58FRC 3-Speed

Circulator Pump w/ IFC, (59896343)

Price 2 4 9 4 8Temperature Range 3 7 5 8 5Flow Rate 8 2 8 5 4Head Range 7 5 8 6 4Total 20 18 30 23 21

19

6.0 System Level Design

6.1 Test Rig

The test stand design was separated into its fundamental pieces to simplify its design. A 3D model of the Test Rig is shown in Figure 8 with its major components identified. The rig is composed of: a substructure (1), heat source (2), pump (3), heat exchanger (4), and data collection devices not shown in Figure 8. Although they are the fundamental pieces to the rig, they are interrelated and an iterative approach was used in selecting each feature.

Figure 8: Schematic of Test Rig

Heat SourceThe selection of the heat source required an estimation of losses through the heat exchanger, tubing network, and oil reservoir. The desired temperature in the reservoir was set by the sponsor at 200-300°F. The limitations of the pump forced us to select an operating temperature of 230°F. This change in the temperature range was approved by the sponsor during the weekly meeting on February 3rd. The analysis through the tubing network was done by creating a thermal circuit extending from the flow in the pipe through the copper wall, insulation, and then to free convection. The flow inside the pipe will have a Reynold’s number of ≈ 350 at the desired mass flow rate of 0.3 gpm. Using a Nusselt correlation the convection coefficient at this flow rate was determined to be 49 W/ (m2*K). The convection coefficient on the outer surface was found using free convection correlations. Important non-dimensional quantities used in the derivation were: Grashof (1.6*106), Raleigh (1.15*106), and Nusselt (8.85). These values resulted in a convection coefficient of 8.0 (W/m2*K). The conclusion from the thermal circuit was a loss of 2 watts for every meter of flow as demonstrated in equations 3 through 15. The designed tubing path will have less than 2 meters of flow leaving the resultant loss as negligible. Losses through the

20

reservoir were made by creating a thermal circuit similar to the methods used in analyzing tubing loss and are shown in equations 16 through 18.

Heat Exchanger Losses:Losses through the heat exchanger were estimated using a thermal circuit. While preliminary designs are being produced for the heat exchanger there are no completed designs that can be used as of yet to model the losses. For this reason we selected to use a scenario in which very efficient fins (η = 1) are present on both the internal and external surfaces of the heat exchanger.The internal fin lengths were modeled as the full inner diameter of the tube, with a thickness τ = 3.175 mm. The external fins were given a length of 60 mm and a thickness τ = 6.0 mm. The number of fins placed on the interior and exterior surface was 100 and 400 respectively. Because the heat exchanger’s design is currently undetermined estimations were made for the interior and exterior convection coefficients. The value of hoil was selected at 100 (W/m2K), double that of the convection coefficient determined in the pipe. We expect to have a “tripping” action that moves the flow to turbulence in our test section and thus increase our rate of heat transfer. The exterior convection coefficient was found using the Churchill-Bernstein correlation for a cylinder in cross-flow. The resulting coefficient was found to be 51.314 (W/m2K); however because the exact contribution of the fins to the flow is unknown we doubled the value as a precautionary measure to 100 (W/m2K).

UA=[ 1ηπ {(N f Lf d f )+(LHXdHX ) }hoil

+ln(D f

d f)

2 πkL+ 1ηπ { (N f Lf D f )+(LHX DHX ) }hoil

]UA=2.188W /K

(1)

The losses can then be calculated with the known temperature difference between the hot oil and the cooling air. With the air at 70°F and the oil at 230°F a ΔT can be determined. The resulting power loss through the heat exchanger is shown as:

qHX=UA ΔT=194.5W (2)

Tubing Losses:Losses through the tubing were conducted using a thermal circuit approach and determined a final value based on watts per meter of the tubing length. The mean temperature difference between the oil and air was made to be the difference between reservoir temperature and that of the ambient air.

Convection Coefficient inside Tube:

ℜ= 4ṁπµdi

=350 (3)

Nu=hdiK

=3.66 (4)

21

h=48.678W

m2K

(5)

Rh={ 1hπD }L (6)

Tube Resistance:

Rp={ln ( do

d i)

2 πk}L (7)

Insulation:

Ri={ Řπd }L (8)

Free Convection Outside of Tube:

Gr=gβΔT L3

ν=1.6∗106 (9)

Ra=GrPr=1.15∗106 (10)

Nu=0.48 (Ra )0.25=hdk

(11)

h=8.008W

m2 K

(12)

Ro={ 1hπD }L (13)

Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient:

UA /L= {Ro+Ri+Rp+Rh }=0.0145W /mK (14)

Total Tubing Loss:qp

L=∆TUA /L=1.29

Wm

(15)

Reservoir Losses: The losses throughout the reservoir’s surface were estimated using a thermal circuit technique. Convection coefficients on both the internal and external surfaces were estimated. For free convection of air over a flat plate a high value would be 25 W/(m2*K), which is the estimated value on the external surface. A value of 100 W/(m2*K) was selected for the internal surface of the reservoir based on the 2009 Penn State-Flowserve report; in which a thermal analysis was also conducted on the reservoir.

22

Heat flux: q = {ΔT} over {left [{1} over {{h} rsub {o}} + {L} over {k} + Ř + {1} over {{h} rsub {a}} right ]} =39.315 {W} over {{m} ^ {2}(16)

Total Loss of Reservoir:

qr=4q LH + 2q LW=14.463W (17)

Total Thermal Losses from the Test Rig and Heat Exchanger:

qT=qHX+qp+qr=210.96Watts (18)

Currently without a designed heat exchanger there had to be a fair amount of assumptions in determining a power loss. We attempted to model a scenario in which large losses would be observed across our heat exchanger; requiring the most power from our heat source to operate the test loop. As stated above we did this by selecting a large fin surface area with fins at 100% efficiency. Combining the losses from reservoir, piping travel, and across the heat exchanger itself, we expect to see 210.96 Watts across the system when a high performance heat exchanger is in place. We will be using a reservoir supplied from Flowserve that has a 1000 watt heating element. This is more than sufficient to regain the losses that we will dissipate through our system.

Tubing Network:The tubing network will feature ½” diameter insulated copper tubing. The diameter matches that of our anticipated heat exchanger designs. The diameter also results in laminar flow at a 0.3 gpm flow rate, which will minimize thermal losses as the hot oil enters the heat exchanger. As shown previously; considering laminar flow and the surrounding insulation the heat loss through the tubing will be negligible. The designed network will pull oil from the reservoir through the pump and then make a vertical climb to the testing section. This will be the highest point throughout the Test Rig, allowing oil to drain back to the reservoir while the heat exchanger is being exchanged. The oil will then pass through the test section and be returned to the reservoir.

Pump:In the interest of cost we selected a 1/25 HP Circulator pump that can deliver a 0-8 gpm flow rate. The team will use a valve to maintain our desired flow rate. The pump is designed to operate at temperatures up to 230°F fluid which is within our temperature range and the deciding factor for our thermal analysis.

Pressure Loss Factors:These are the contributing factors for major and minor loss in the test loop.

friction factor : f =16ℜ =0.046 (19)

∆ P=4 fLdi

ρv2

2=1.96

Ld i

(20)

23

Minor Losses:The contributing factors to minor losses in our system were the result of 6x90° (ξ90° = 30) bends, one valve (ξvalve = 470) and 4 “T” connectors (ξT = 20).

∆ Pminor=1.96∗[6∗ξ90 °+ξvalve+4∗ξT ]=1432Pa (21)

Major Losses:The head loss is a result of the loss due to friction as the oil travels the length of the pipe and is modeled by the above equation (20) for pressure loss ΔP. The only factors left to be included are length and internal diameter, which are calculated below

∆ Pmajor=4 fLd i

ρv2

2=1.96

Ldi

=302 Pa (22)

Head Loss:There is an additional loss that occurs as the oil has to make a climb to the test section. The contributing loss from the section is modeled by fluid statics.

∆ P static=ρgh=865∗9.8∗.33=2.822kPa (23)

HX Pressure Loss:Losses through the heat exchanger were done considering the interior fins as a lattice structure. With this assumption empirical correlations (Forchheimer Equation) were used for homogeneous isotropic foams with open cells. This modeled the pressure drop per unit length that we would observe in our heat exchanger. Where: μ is oil viscosity, ρ is oil density, U is average oil velocity, and F and K are empirical coefficients.

Forchheimer Equation :−dPdx

= μKU+ ρF

√KU 2

(24)

Factors F and K are found using the following correlations with: porosity (ε), ligament diameter (df), and pore diameter (Dp).

F=0.00212 (1−ε )−.132{ d f

D p}−1.63

=0.4727(25)

KD p

2 =0.00073 (1−ε )−.224 { d f

D p}−1.11

=2.18 x10−7 (26)

The result of the Forchheimer Equation is then:

∆ PHX=−dPdx

=28745.3Pam

∨1.238 psi/ ft (27)

24

Total Pressure losses through the System:The total pressure drop through our system will then be:

∆ PHX=∆ Pminor+∆ Pmajor+∆ Pstatic+∆ Phx=1.898 psi∨13.09kPa (28)

The head loss through the system will then be 1.898 psi or 5 feet of water. Our selected pump is specified to run at a maximum of 5.58 ft of head. As the maximum operable head loss is reached the flow rate will decrease; this leaves our flow rate closer to the desired value of 0.3 gpm and will lower the need for the valve to restrict the flow.

Data Acquisition:It is desired to collect the temperature and pressure difference of the oil across the heat exchanger. In addition, the air flow rate and temperature difference will be measured. T-connectors will be implemented to accommodate both thermistors and pressure gages at both the entrance and exit of the heat exchanger. The anemometer will gather both flow rate and temperature of the air.

Substructure:The substructure as seen in section 6.1 on Figure 8 of the Test Rig will use 2x4 lumber and ¼” oriented strand board (OSB). This simple light weight structure will have enough rigidity to support the hot fluid reservoir. The 2x4 structure will consist of three 30” boards connected on end by two 24” boards. Over this structure will be a sheet of the OSB board to support the reservoir and pump. A second sheet of OSB board will be attached orthogonally to the previous on a 2x4 frame. This section will separate the heat exchanger from the rest of the Test Rig. Figure 8 shows how the substructure will support both the heat reservoir and other components of the Test Rig while separating the heat exchanger from the rest of the system.

6.2 Heat Exchanger Design

Our current heat exchanger designs will make use of the additive manufacturing techniques by creating complex fin geometries. We will further update this section in the DSR.

7.0 Special Topics

7.1 Preliminary Economic Analysis- Budget and Vendor Purchase Information

Initial budget projections have been performed to determine project feasibility and to properly allocate budget resources. A preliminary budget table and bill of materials for the Test Rig are provided in Table 13 and in the A5 of the Appendix. Each item was priced at an average of what it would cost, this allows for a tolerance in the cost estimate to alleviate any unexpected modifications or expenditures. Team Flow Gurus does not intend to accrue travel expenses throughout the project. The team will do its best to make use of the resources available to acquire as many of the items at a reduced cost. The team has already been offered a heating element and reservoir from a previous project as well as thermocouples and anemometer which can be provided by the sponsor. Team Flow Gurus will also order supplies from reputable companies to assure quality and compatibility between parts.

25

Table 13: Financial Estimate for the Test Rig

Rig Structure

Part Description Price/Unit # of units Cost of Part

2 X 4 Substructure (8' sections) 3.00 2 6.00

1/4 x 4 x 8 Utility OSB 6.57 1 6.57

.5" x 1' type K tubing 2.59 8 20.72

T fittings 0.65 2 1.30

90 degree fitting 0.36 8 2.88

1/2" coupling 0.29 3 0.87

Insulation 3.90 2 7.80

Fasteners (75 ct. screws) 8.57 1 8.57

Thermistors 25 4 100.00

Heat Source (donated) 85 1 85.00

Pump (Estimated) 85 1 85.00

Pressure Gage 15 2 30.00

Plexiglass Sheet 25.49 2 50.98

Shipping 50.00

Total 421.67

7.2 Project Management

The project Gantt chart is provided below as Figure 9 and in A2 of the Appendix. It is arranged in chronological order of major industry and class dates. There are two major parts to the Flowserve project; the Test Rig and the design of the heat exchanger tubes. The Test Rig is divided into subcategories that the team has developed to describe the project’s components: thermistors, pressure glands, box fan, heat reservoir and sensors/software data collection. Team Flow Gurus has allocated its project schedule to be aggressive in the early stages. This allows the test rig components and design to be approved early, which will allow time to calibrate the Test Rig as well as make modifications if problems arise. The team felt this was appropriate considering the accuracy and consistency of the heat exchanger data is dependent on a properly built and calibrated Test Rig. Another consideration for the aggressive early scheduling is that the turn-around time for each heat exchanger tubes will be about three weeks.

26

Time leftMilestonesPassage of TimeBehind Schedule

Days 7 14 21 28 35 42 49 56 63 70 77 84 91 98 105

MonthDeliverables AgreementStatement of WorkFinal ReportDSRConcept Rig DesignCustomer Needs EvaluationConcept Generation Test RigPatent SearchExisting Technology SearchEngineering SpecificationsOrder Box FanOrder PipingOrder PumpOrder Heat ReservoirOrder Data CollectorOrder Pressure ProbeOrder Temperature ProbeSelect Temperature ProbeSelect Pressure ProbeSelect Box FanSelect Heat ReservoirSelect Data CollectionTest Rig ConstructionFin Concept DesignFin Concept Design 2Fin Design Testing

AprilFebruary

Gantt Chart

January March

Figure 9: Gantt Chart with Milestones in Green

As mechanical engineers, the team’s primary skill sets revolve around mechanical system design as well as heat transfer concepts. Other key skills that will be required for this project are machining and welding skills as well as software and electrical interfacing knowledge. While members of the team have strengths in these areas, the team is prepared to seek help from professors and outside resources to meet the design goals of the project.

All tasks defined in the Gantt chart must be completed on time, in order to insure a complete and working Test Rig. After designing and performing calculations on the systems, Team Flow Gurus will first build the Test Rig structure as this will be the key building block which all data will be collected on. The structure must be able to hold at least 6 liters of oil and maintain a constant temperature within the reservoir. The team will next install the tubing with the proper connections to allow for easy access and interchangeability of the heat exchanger tube. Once the Test Rig is built and calibrated property, data will be collected for comparison between the different heat exchanger designs. What is expected by team Flow Gurus can has been disclosed in the deliverable agreement which can be seen in A1 of the Appendix.

7.3 Risk Plan and Safety

The primary goal of this project is to keep everyone safe while performing experiments. Therefore, it is necessary to assess all possible safety risks along with other risks that could prevent the development of a successful heat exchanger. A Risk Analysis Chart can be seen in Table 14.

Safety will be addressed using several different approaches. First, during testing everyone will be required to be wearing proper safety gear. At a minimum this includes goggles, gloves, and lab coats. A large protective material will be placed between the Test Rig and those performing the

27

tests as an additional safety measure. Prior to the testing of the heated fluids, a test will be performed at low temperatures to check for leaks or other possible safety concerns. Ultimately, if any issue arises the team will address it. This may be as severe as redesigning a component, but safety must come first. Additionally, collection bins placed under the rig will address any spill risk. Also, testing the assembly with water first will allow for any flaws in the system to be identified. This will prevent any damage that the hot oil could cause from occurring because all leaks will have been found and sealed.

Other risks can come through setbacks in the projects development. A high risk comes in the form of schedule delays. At times the group will experience setbacks or require more time to complete a task. To combat this, the group will look to always stay days ahead of schedule at all times and at the worst complete tasks by the completion date on the Gantt Chart. Throughout the project the group will make sure that the critical path is a priority so that other tasks are not held up.

Dealing with a customer also poses possible risks that the group must account for. The customer could request a change in design or be unsatisfied with current progress. To account for this the group will maintain constant contact with the sponsor throughout the project and provide updates of any changes with the project status. This should lead to a satisfied customer as they will know what to expect and will allow for any changes in design to quickly be identified.

The final component that could be a risk to the development of the project concerns the actual materials being used. The group will have to order parts and expect for them to work. Any delays receiving the parts could be a major setback. Therefore, it is necessary to place orders far ahead of time. Additionally, the Test Rig is being developed first to account for any setbacks. These components could end up failing so fall back strategies have been put in place.

Many risks have been identified and with actions to minimize them the project should progress as planned. The group will continue to identify and address possible problems throughout the progression of the project.

28

Table 14: Risk Analysis

Risk Level Actions To Minimize Fall Back Strategy

Schedule Delays

High -Keep up with Gant chart-Don’t let setbacks delay other work

-Set aside additional time for delays-Have additional team meetings

Spills Moderate

-Collection bin under the Test Rig in case of spills-Test with water to minimize spill damage

-If there are leaks redesign or reconstruct the Test Rig

Safety High -Place some sort of large material between Test Rig and testers-Test Rig with water at low temperatures for leaks-Wear appropriate safety gear such as goggles, gloves, jackets-Appoint a safety manager

-If there are any safety issues make sure they are addressed-Redesign or reconstruct if necessary

Customer wants change in design

Low -Communicate throughout each step of the project

-Allow ample time for modifications to design-Confirm design concept before getting parts produced

Data Logger Breaks

Low -Prevent any damage from occurring to the data logger

- Borrow one from Reber or other campus source

Pump Fails Low - Purchase pump capable of performing necessary work-Work pump within its specified capacity- Test early in case of failure

-Use warranty to get replacement pump- Purchase new pump

Delays in order delivery

Moderate

-Place orders before spring break (3/1/2012) so that all materials will have arrived by the groups return (3/12/2012)-Design Test Rig first to allow for parts to be shipped

-Modify design-Order parts early in the project

Test Rig does not function properly

Moderate

-Sufficient planning and design-Test with water at room temperature prior to testing heated oil

-Change or modify design-Seal up all leaks

Customer not Low -Communicate throughout the -If unsatisfied at any point

29

satisfied process-Get a clear understanding of the customer needs

find out why-Find a new approach to satisfy the customer needs

7.4 Ethics Statement

As engineers it is necessary to abide by all established ethical standards. According to the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, there are three fundamental principles and eight fundamental canons under the “Code of Ethics of Engineers” (ASME, 2012). Concerning this project, the Flow Gurus will aim to satisfy each applicable code in order to ethically complete the task at hand. The most relevant ethic canons are outlined below. The first fundamental canon states, “Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public in the performance of their professional duties.” The general public may not come into contact with the testing rig because it is not being sold or distributed; however, it is necessary to make sure that any person near its operation is safe. In order to satisfy the project requirements, The Flow Gurus must work with dangerous conditions. With high temperature liquid flowing through the heat exchanger it is paramount to make sure that it cannot harm those in the room. A sound design can ensure this and along with additional safety measures this canon will be satisfied. Safety gloves, glasses, and coats will be worn at a minimum. Additionally, a protective shield will be between the liquid and personnel at all times. This will help ensure that even after its use at the Pennsylvania State University it can be safely operated.

Another relevant canon is the fourth one, which states, “Engineers shall act in professional matters for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees, and shall avoid conflicts of interest or the appearance of conflicts of interest.” As engineers working for a sponsor, Flowserve, it is necessary to act as professionally as possible in every aspect of the project. This can be done by maintaining communication and producing a high quality product that satisfies the customer’s needs. Listening to the customer and adjusting the products design accordingly will help to satisfy any problems that may be found.

The Flow Gurus will look over all canons and principles in order to be able to complete this project as ethically as possible. While some codes and principles are more relevant than others, all must be accounted for and satisfied.

7.5 Environmental Statement

Throughout the development and experimentation of the Test Rig it is the Flow Gurus will meet and exceed all environmental standards. The primary environmental goal is to leave the surroundings unaffected by the work completed throughout the project.The Test Rig itself will eventually be transported to the Flowserve site where Flowserve representatives will set it up for future use. Therefore, recyclability of the Test Rig is not a concern as it will have future use after its life at the Pennsylvania State University. Addressing the oil used is an essential component of the environmental impact. The Flow Gurus will properly research and complete all necessary protocols for the oils disposal once the final oil

30

type is determined. The group will locate proper material safety and data sheets (MSDS) in order to learn how to transport and dispose of the fluid. Another aspect that falls under environmental issues concerns the maintenance of the testing room that the rig will be held in. It is necessary to keep the work area clean and safe, which can be done by placing a secondary container under the rig. Additionally, the testing itself will expose the rig to high temperatures and by ensuring a safe Test Rig the group will be able to prevent any damage to the room through spills or leaks. The Flow Gurus will also attempt to have as minimal of an environmental impact as possible by using as few resources as possible in the construction of the Test Rig. This will cut down on costs, but also prevent resources from being wasted. The group will also use electronic resources as opposed to paper in order to additionally minimize environmental impact.

7.6 Communication and Coordination with Sponsor

Initial contact with the Flowserve representative, Andrew Schevets, was made on January 17th through an introductory e-mail. In this e-mail the group was able to ask several questions concerning the project in an attempt to gain a better understanding of the task at hand. Additionally, the group inquired about the preferred method of communication and a date to meet in person.

On January 25th the Flow Gurus made a site visit to Flowserve at the Phillipsburg, New Jersey location. During this visit, the project was discussed in further detail and the group got a much better understanding of the conditions that the system should be held to. Following the visit, up until the first teleconference, contact with the sponsor was maintained through e-mails from the group leader Christopher Zerphey. During this period more questions were brought up particularly concerning the Test Rig and its design.

On Tuesday January 24th the group submitted its first weekly memo to the Flowserve representative documenting the current project status, work performed in the past week, and agenda for the upcoming week. Submitting a Tuesday memo has become a weekly occurrence and is a good way to update the sponsor of the group’s progress prior to teleconferences.

On Thursday February 2nd at 12:30 PM the group had its first teleconference call with the sponsor using the meeting@pennstate software. The meeting place was on the 2nd floor of the Deike building in a study room. The Thursday meeting time is a weekly occurrence and will complement e-mail communication well. As stated before, a weekly memo is sent out the Tuesday prior to the teleconference so that the sponsor can get a general update of the group’s progress. Communication through e-mails, memos, and teleconferences will provide ample contact between the sponsor and group. Any problems can be immediately addressed through e-mail and can be taken into further detail through the teleconference.

31

References

Branson, Spencer T. Heat Exchangers: Types, Design, and Applications. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science, 2011. Print.

Burge, Phil. (2010). PUMP BEARINGS; Bearing down on failures. ProcessEngineering, 38. Centaur Communication Ltd.

"Code of Ethics - American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Colorado Section." AmericanSocietyofMechanicalEngineers. Web. 10 Feb. 2012. <http://sections.asme.org/colorado/ethics.html>.

Gibson, I., Rosen, D., & Stucker, B. (2010). AdditiveManufacturingTechnologies:RapidPrototypingtoDirectDigitalManufacturing (pp. 7-8). New York: Springer.

Incropera, Dewitt, Bergman, & Lavine. (2006). FundamentalsofHeatandMassTransfer (Sixth.). Wiley & Sons Inc.

Materna, Peter.(2003). Optimized Fins For Convective Heat Transfer, U.S. Patent 6668915-B1.

Schmidt, Wayde R. Micro Heat Exchanger With Thermally Conductive Porous Network. United Technologies Corporation, assignee. Patent US 7,871,578,578B2. 18 Jan. 2011. Print.

Slaughter, Victor B. Method of Using Minimal Surfaces and Minimal Skeletons to Make Heat Exchanger Components. The Boeing Company, assignee. Patent 7,866,377B2. 11 Jan. 2011. Print.

Thors, P. and Narayanamurthy, R. (2005). Heat Transfer Tube with Grooved Inner Surface, U.S. Patent 6883597 B2.

32

Appendix

A1: Deliverables Agreement

Date 2/10/12 Project Title Flowserve Heat Exchanger Sponsor Company Flowserve Company Contact Andrew Schevets Phone (908) 859-7389 Email ASchevets@flowserve.com Faculty Coach Dr. Santoro Email rjs@psu.edu Team Name Flow Gurus Student Team (primary contact) Chris Zerphey crz5019@psu.edu

Derek Hall dmh5373@psu.edu Dalton Talia djt5061@psu.edu

Frank Wolfe flw108@psu.edu Marin Tola mit5078@psu.edu

Problem Statement: Design and create a heat exchanger utilizing the metal printing technique. The heat exchanger will cool a hot liquid by air with forced convection. The heat exchanger will be tested with a rig created by the team and will be delivered to Flowserve upon completion of the project.

Deliverables: Delivery Date1) Signed Deliverables Agreement February 7th

2) Weekly update memos (status reports); delivery method: Wed. Memo, Weekly3) Statement of Work (copies to sponsor and instructor) February 17th

4) Design Specification Report (copies to sponsor, instructor) March 15th,22nd

5) Final Report (copies to sponsor, instructor and Learning Factory) April 30th

6) Poster (32 x 40”) for Showcase April 14th

7) One-Page Project Recap April 30th

8) FunctioningTestRigthatoperatesinterchangeableheatexchangersofa12inchlengthand0.5inchinnerdiameter.Therigmustcirculateahotfluidthroughtheheatexchangerandprovideairflowforforcedconductionovertheheatexchanger.Therigmustbeabletoreadinletandoutletpressuresandtemperaturesfromtheheatexchanger.

April 30th

9) Multipleheatexchangersaretobeproducedinaccordancewiththebudgetoftheproject.Theyaretomaximizetheamountofenergythatcanberemovedfromthehotfluidbyutilizingthemetalprintingtechnology.

April 30th

33

A2: Gantt Chart

34

Time left

Milestones

Passage of Time

Behind ScheduleD

ays7

1421

2835

4249

5663

7077

8491

98105

Month

Deliverables Agreem

entStatem

ent of Work

Final ReportD

SRConcept Rig D

esignCustom

er Needs Evaluation

Concept Generation Test Rig

Patent SearchExisting Technology SearchEngineering SpecificationsO

rder Box FanO

rder PipingO

rder Pump

Order H

eat ReservoirO

rder Data CollectorO

rder Pressure ProbeO

rder Temperature Probe

Select Temperature Probe

Select Pressure ProbeSelect Box FanSelect H

eat ReservoirSelect D

ata CollectionTest Rig ConstructionFin Concept D

esignFin Concept D

esign 2Fin D

esign Testing

AprilFebruary

Gantt C

hart

JanuaryM

arch

A3: Resumes

Derek M. Hall1270 Circleville RoadState College PA, 16803Phone: (607) 342-5440

dmh5373@psu.edu

Education

Bachelor’s Degree in Energy Engineering, 2009 – Present; 3.75 GPAMinor in Electrochemical EngineeringThe Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity Park, PA 16801

Work Experiences

Researcher, Energy InstituteState College, Pennsylvania. March 2011 - Present

Improved the existing design of a high temperature electrophoresis system. Used electrochemical techniques to evaluate system parameters. Created an operational manual for a future user facility.

Researcher, National Geothermal Competition State College, Pennsylvania. November 2010 - June 2011

Worked with a theoretical power plant design team funded by NREL. Modeled the performance of a theoretical coal gasification reactor. Identified optimal operational parameters to maximize reactor performance.

Honors/Awards

Society of Energy Engineers, Vice President 2011-2012Energy Institute’s Student Achievement Award December 2011ABET Program Evaluation, Energy Engineer Student Representative August 2011Lean Sigma, Yellow Belt June 2011Society of Energy Engineers, Accreditation Liaison 2010-2011

Publications

1.           Chandra, D., Conrad, C., Hall, D., Montebello, N., Weiner, A., Narasimharaju, A., Rajput, V., Phelan, E., Pisupati, S., Turaga, U., Izadi, G., Ram Mohan, A., Elsworth, D. (2011) Combined scCO2-EGS IGCC to reduce carbon emissions from power generation in the desert southwestern United States. Trans. Geotherm. Res. Council. 20 pp. October.

2.           Chandra, D., Conrad, C., Hall, D., Montebello, N., Weiner, A., Narasimharaju, A., Rajput, V., Phelan, E., Pisupati, S., Turaga, U., Izadi, G., Ram Mohan, A., Elsworth, D. (2011) Pairing integrated gasification and EGS geothermal systems to reduce consumptive water usage in arid environments. Submitted for publication. Geothermics. 40 pp. 

35

FRANCIS L. WOLFF 967 Southgate Drive, State College, PA 16801

(570) 926-1551 flw108@psu.edu

EducationThe Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PABachelor of Science, Mechanical Engineering (December 2012)GPA of 3.69/4.00, Dean’s list x6

Relevant CoursesThermodynamics Heat Transfer Vibration of Mechanical Systems Strength and Properties of Materials Principles of Turbo-machinery Microstructure Design of Structural Materials

ExperiencePSU/ARL Metals and Ceramics Processing Department Intern (July 2009 - Present)Pennsylvania State University, State College, PA

Performed material analysis including; sample preparation, optical microscopy, and hardness testing (Vickers and Rockwell) for industrial and government programs.

Experienced with cold spray and spray metal forming technology.

U.S. Army Reserves Sergeant (November 2006 - May 2010)392nd Signal Battalion, Tobyhanna, PA

Assisted military and civilian I.T. specialist in establishing communication networks. Trained soldiers on the new WIN-T equipment that was fielded to the 392nd Signal BN. Validated 8 Satellite Transportable Terminal (STT) systems so they could be used in overseas

operations.

U.S. Army Specialist (July 2003 - July 2006)Bravo Co. 2-70th Armor Battalion, Ft. Riley, KS

Maintained 22 M1A1 Abrams tanks over a course of 2.5 years, including a 13 month deployment in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Identified faults and implemented corrective actions for electrical, hydraulic, and mechanical systems on both the turret and hull of the M1A1 Abrams Main Battle Tank.

Performed routine Preventive Maintenance Checks and Services (PMCS) to prevent component failure while operating in the field.

Skills and Achievements Experience with Microsoft Office, SolidWorks, Matlab, ABAQUS, and DAQ software. Graduated as the Distinguished Honor Graduate during my Army Basic Training and AIT. Graduated on the Commandant’s list during Warrior Leadership Training. Active Security Clearance DoD

36

37

38

39

A4: Miscellaneous Figures

Pump Specs

40

Omega Thermocouple Specs

Omega Thermistor Specs

Omega Infrared Specs

41

A5: BOM

Rig Structure

Part Description Price/Unit # of units Cost of Part

2 X 4 substructure (8' sections) 3.00 2 6.00

1/4 x 4 x 8 Utility OSB 6.57 1 6.57

.5" x 1' type K tubing 2.59 8 20.72

T fittings 0.65 2 1.30

90 degree fitting 0.36 8 2.88

1/2" coupling 0.29 3 0.87

Insulation 3.90 2 7.80

Fasteners (75 ct. screws) 8.57 1 8.57

Thermistors 25 2 100.00

Heat Source (donated) 85 1 0.00

Pump (Estimated) 85 1 85.00

Pressure Gage 15 2 30.00

Plexiglass Sheet 25.49 2 50.98

Shipping 50.00

Total 421.67

42

A6: Team Notes

Tuesday 1/17/2012…Class

Met with group for the first time Exchanged contact information

o Derrick, Dmh5737@psu.edu, 607-342-5440o Chris, Crz5019@psu.edu, 717-725-2639o Frank, Flw108@psu.edu, 570-926-1551o Marin, Mit5078@psu.edu, 267-897-0351o Dalton, Djt5061@psu.edu, 267-614-4756

Found out meeting times outside of classo Wednesday after 4:30o Thursday 11-1

Began thinking about the projecto Applicationso Are there previous experiments or existing datao Are we making multiple designs

Thought out what to say in our first contact email

Thursday 1/19/2012…Class

Identified future needso Team contracto Gantt Charto Meeting time for visito Meeting time for telecommo What to wear to visito Weekly memo

Class lecture on workplace customs and memo overview

Sunday 1/22/2012…Team meeting, Hammond computer lab 5:00-5:30

Completed several taskso Weekly memoo Team Contracto Gantt chart displayed

43

Tuesday 1/24/2012…Class

Team discussion consisted of brainstorming possible questions for the Flowserve visito Will the heat exchanger clogo Cross flow vs. counter flowo Two designs

Microfins Microtubing

o Rig design specifications: Laminar vs. Turbulent flowo Velocity and mass flow rate in pipe

For the futureo Notes and questions for the 1/25/2012 Flowserve visito Look into work done by Ralph Webbo Business casual attireo Set up teleconferenceo Deliverables

RIG CAD Experiment results

Wednesday 1/25/2012…Flowserve Site Visit, 7:30AM-5:30PM

Discussed Project in more detail Examined examples of printing capabilities Went over project limitations Saw facilities Attained a better overall understanding

Sunday 1/29/2012…Team Meeting, Hammond Computer Lab 5:00-6:00

Team Discussiono Went over the necessary system components and their priceo Took a look at ½” pipe and possible fittingso Looked into deep fryer specificationso Determined volumetric flow rate of 20 mL/s

For ½” pipe this takes 2 seconds to pass through a 12” sectiono Figured out wattage to account for losses

For Next Timeo What data acquisition system does Flowserve haveo Each person given component of system to research

Pump Basin Thermocouple

44

Fan Pressure gages

Tuesday 1/30/2012…Class

Team discussiono Type of oil being used resembles bearing oilo Safety components

Lab jackets, goggles, gloves, cover deep fryer, plexi-glass shieldo Secondary failure

Big leak, pipe break, etc Place big collection bucket underneath

o How big will test rig be and how will it be transportedo Will oil be flammable? MSDS charts neededo Have safety review or designate a safety persono Assume system will have 10 feet of pipeo Insulation?

Future Considerationso February 9th major report due

For Next Timeo For teleconference

Have budget outlined Can the group borrow Flowserve’s data acquisition system Discuss safety concerns

Wednesday 2/1/2012…Hammond Computer Lab 4:00-7:00

Tasks Worked Ono Group Met and Divided up Worko Began Statement of Work Reporto Customer Needs Identified and SOW section completed for thiso Worked on thermal circuit

For Next Timeo Continue to work on SOW sections individuallyo Teleconference for Thursday 2/2/2012

45

Thursday 2/2/2012…Deike Library Room 12:30-1:00

Sponsor had to cancel meeting around 12:00 due to travel

Thursday 2/2/2012…Class

Risk Assessment overviewo Risk= Magnitude x Frequencyo Cost benefit analysis

Good design, low cost ratioso Ford Pinto

Problem fix vs. Eating the cost Publicity ended up killing them

Money saved initially ended up costing themo Risk Factors

Marketing- Somebody else makes it first Technical- Example of iPhone antenna Schedule Manufacturing Reliability Product safety

o Integrate risk reduction into Gantt Chart

Friday 2/3/2012…Team Teleconference Deike Library Room A 1:30-2:00

Make-up teleconference for the cancellation a day prioro Discussed budget in detail

Each ‘expert’ of a main component went over price and reasoning Suggestions made to each component

Pump: Electric oil pump or turbocharger oil pump Pump is ultimate limiter Pump originally shown by sponsor is too expensive

Questions asked about thermocoupleso Open system- Low pressureo Box fan- 1500-2200 CFMo ProMetal accuracy between 4000 and 8000ths of an inch

For Next Timeo Sponsor provides

Oil specifications Previous work performed by another group

o Group supplies sponsor Deliverables agreement

46

Statement of work Ideas for piping

Tuesday 2/7/2012…Class 12:15-12:45 Meeting with Professor

Due in classo Executive Summary Reviewo Deliverables Agreement

Discussion with professor, suggestions given belowo Avoid words cheaper, larger, expensive, bigger, smaller

No meaning, hard to quantifyo Gantt chart suggestion

Final rig design portion- needs to be broken down into more detailo Forced Convection discussion, group needs to define this term

1500-2200 CFM by house box fano Specify what the group is deliveringo Fill in nondisclosure agreement/ IP

Group should have copieso Splitting up SOW concerns

Want someone to integrate it to account for different styles Different proofreaders

For next classo Short 60-90 second presentationo Fill out team evaluation sheetso Statement of work due Fridayo Visit Wayne Royer in Reber to get room

North side on right to engineering C

Thursday 2/9/2012…Teleconference Deike Building 12:30-1:00

What the group is receiving in future from Flowserveo DAQ and softwareo Basin for oil

Will be 15-20 lbso Fittings, anything else useful that can be found

Discussiono Heating requirement discussion due to new heat source

Is 1000 Watts sufficient…yes Insulation will be needed

o Oil Viscosity 32ftg Similar to 10W30

o Pump selection discussion Grundfus UP15-10F selected

47

o SOW due Friday so heat exchanger design will be completed in upcoming weekso Can Lattice Assembly be opened, need .stl opener

For sponsoro Deliverables agreemento SOW on 2/16/2012o See if .stl file can be openedo Address for packageo Heat exchanger design before spring break

Thursday 2/9/2012…Class 1:00-2:15

In classo Group presentations for each projecto Chris presents Flowserve project

Futureo SOW due 2/10/2012 at midnight

Group plans work schedule to finish SOW

Friday 2/10/2012…Hammond Lab 5:00-6:00

Group meets to go over SOW and final changes Will be submitted by Derek at 10:00 PM

Sunday 2/12/2012…Group Meeting Hammond Lab 5:00-6:40

Team completedo Created SOW presentation slideso Modified CAD drawing to account for pump

For futureo Members must complete sides for the section they will be presenting

Slides due Monday night so Chris can compile by Tuesday morningo Begin looking into fin designs

48