Design and Development of a Hydro-Turbine

Document Sample
Design and Development of a Hydro-Turbine Powered By Docstoc
					Design and
Development of
a Hydro-Turbine

 Senior Engineering
 Design Project - 2008

     John Connor
      Elisia Garcia
    Som Tantipitham

     Faculty Advisor:
 Dr. Quamrul Mazumder
   Abstract
 The usage of fossil fuels is slowly being replaced by
  cleaner and more renewable sources of energy. Since
  Michigan has varying amounts of sunlight, the use of solar
  energy would not be practical. With the Flint River located
  on the campus of the University of Michigan-Flint,
  hydroelectric energy may be a feasible alternative.
  Connecting a micro-turbine to a generator and using the
  natural current of the river can prospectively generate 200
  to 300 watts of energy. Funneling the water into the
  turbine will increase the velocity of the current. With more
  velocity, more revolutions the turbine will experience.
  Then, with the goal of 200 to 300 watts desired, the turbine
  will be equipped with the appropriate number of blades,
  along with appropriate blade angle. This will ensure that
  not only the desired energy is produced, but that also that
  the system is as efficient as possible.
   Project Schedule
Task Name                              January                   February                   March                             April
                                       8-Jan 14-Jan 21-Jan 28-Jan 4-Feb 11-Feb 18-Feb 25-Feb 3-Mar 10-Mar 17-Mar 24-Mar 31-Mar 7-Apr 14-Apr 21-Apr
Project Propsals

Background Research



Technical Paper (Abstract/Intro)

Technical Paper (Background)

Technical Paper (Current Work)

Technical Paper (Design Analysis)

Technical Paper (Final Correlations)



Design Proposal

Design (Detail Spec Drawings Pro-E)

Design Data Computations

Design Software Analysis



Machining (Casing)

Machining (Turbine)

Machining (Supports)

Machining (Generator Assemby)

Machining (Final Assembly)



Testing (Initial)

Testing (Modifications)

Testing (Final)



Project Status Report/Demonstration



Final Presentation



                                            Estimated Task Completion         Actual Task Completion




                             Schedule Performance Index: 102.68%
                  Progress
Schedule Performance Index
Project Proposal   s                    (21 days/21 days) * 100 = 100%
Background Research                     (21 days/28 days) * 100 = 75%
T echnical Paper (Abstract/Intro)       (14 days/14 days) * 100 = 100%
T echnical Paper (Background)           (14 days/28 days) * 100 = 75%
T echnical Paper (Current Work)         (14 days/21 days) * 100 = 67%
T echnical Paper (Design Analysis)      (14 days/7 days) * 100 = 200%
T echnical Paper (Final Correlations)   (42 days/42 days) * 100 = 100%
Design Proposals                        (28 days/28 days) * 100 = 100%
Design (Detail Spec Drawings Pro-E)     (28 days/28 days) * 100 = 100%
Design (Data Computations)              (28 days/28 days) * 100 = 100%
Design Software Analysis                (14 days/21 days) * 100 = 67%
Machining (Casing)                      (7 days/7 days) * 100 = 100%
Machining (Turbine)                     (14 days/14 days) * 100 = 100%
Machining (Final Assembly)              (14 days/7 days) * 100 = 200%
T esting (Initial)                      (7 days/7 days) * 100 = 100%
T esting (Modifications)                (14 days/14 days)* 100 = 100%
T esting (Final)                        (14 days/21 days)* 100 = 67%
Project Status Report/Demonstration     (14 days/14 days)* 100 = 100%
Final Presentation                      (7 days/7 days) * 100 = 100%

O verall Average = 102.68 %
Cost Analysis
                                     Efficiency
                                                    RPM Outputs vs. Turbine Efficiency


                               120




                               100




                                80
Turbine Efficiency (Percent)




                                60




                                40




                                20




                                 0
                                         268                532                 800           1064
                                                                   RPM Output




                                     The generator efficiency is directly proportional to the rpm
                Force                   
                                       V  Av
                                        
 Assume:                              V  (0.625 ft 2 )(8blades)(11 ft / s)  55 ft3 / s

 ρwater = 62.4 lbm/ft3
      Vwater init = 7.5 mph = 11ft/s
 Vwater final = 7.0 mph = 10.26 ft/s
                                                                   
 Propeller Diameter = 292 mm m    v                     water
                                                    
  = 0 .958 ft                         m  (62 .4lb / ft )(55 ft / s)  3432 lb / s
                                                                    m
                                                                                3   3



 Area of Blade = 90 in2= 0.625                         
                                      F  m(v  v )
  ft 2                                                         2        1
                                      F  (3432 lb / s )(10 .26 ft / s  11 ft / s )  2539 .68lb

    One dimensional Flow             F  (2539 .68lb / 8blades)  317 .46 lb  1412 .13
                                                                            f               f
Detail Drawings
FEA

       Stress analysis for
        the turbine support
        frame
       Max stress occurs at
        the fixed ends
       Max stress of about
        16000 Pa
FEA

       Total deformation of
        support frame
       Max deformation
        occurs where turbine
        rest
       Max deformation of
        about 1.7e-8m
FEA

       Stress analysis on
        the turbine
       1400N forced placed
        on shaft
       Max stress 14357Pa
FEA

       Total deformation of
        turbine
       1400N force placed
        on the shaft
       Max deformations is
        about 0.17m
       Cause of large
        deformations is
        because sheet metal
        was used for the
        blades
 Assembly




Early Stage of Development: Housing for the Turbine
Assembly




First Generator
Delivered 300W at 3400rpms
Assembly

            Ametek 38 Volt
             Motor
            Can deliver 300W
             with 600rpms
            More compacted and
             lighter
Ametek 38 Volt Motor
Assembly




Early Stage of Development: Turbine
Changes from Original

 Redesigned 10 blades turbine to 8
 Reversed placement of generator on the
  support to better fit the location
 Changed generators
Difficulties

 First generator didn’t perform as
  expected
 Water flow of the river was inconsistent
 River dried up before final testing could
  be done
Difficulties




River dried up in the location that was going to be used
Plan B Testing




 Using a power washer to simulate water flow
 Voltage output of 35.5V
 Using the performance curve, this is equivalent
  to 398W of power
Completed Generator

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:65
posted:12/8/2011
language:Latin
pages:22