8/10/2019 ME340 6D Rough Draft (1)

1/37

FAUCET GENERATORDETAILED DESIGN

8/10/2019 ME340 6D Rough Draft (1)

2/37

1

Executive Summary

Faucet taps are ideal and convenient source to harness the power of water in thehousehold; with any generated power can be used for a range of appliances. An unforeseenopening in this market is a perfect opportunity for us to design and create a unique faucet

generator that every household will want to have. For this design the targeted market is familyhomes and college housing, including dorms and apartments.

Currently there are already water generators of small size in the market, but none ofwhich are specialized for household appliance use; others are for shower heads or outside watertaps. Through consumer surveys we identified this problem and set our design based onrequirements we deemed applicable. Our design will fill this role by being small, easy to use, andefficient so that the consumer can power what they see fit.

Our design is all about simplicity and effectiveness. On the premise of simplicity we havea straight flow line with which we placed an inline turbine. The planned power production is 1.5

volts over a 10 ohm resistor, providing a sufficient amount of power to run the attachment. Theentire unit is no more than 4 inches long from inflow to outflow, making it small andundisruptive for the water flow. The housing for the entire model is durable, sleek and isdesigned with transparent parts to be aesthetically pleasing for the consumer.

The aforementioned were all taken into consideration for the consumers use; but inaddition provide advantages for the production company. From the NPV analysis the true natureof the opportunity presents itself. Production cost of the faucet generator is at $32.52 per partwith a set retail price of $50.00 which with predicted sales creating a net present value of 2.7million dollars. Over a 4 year span the profit margin is considerable for the manufacturer.

With a powerful and relatively low-cost faucet generator to use, we foresee the marketwill be very accepting. Even with other competitors coming into the market down the line, our

product will be the top of the line with good power output, sleek design and appropriate size set amoderate price.

8/10/2019 ME340 6D Rough Draft (1)

3/37

8/10/2019 ME340 6D Rough Draft (1)

4/37

3

Pg. C.1 Faucet Power 21C.2 Nozzle Calculation 21C.3 Pelton Wheel Calculation 21C.4 Economic Analysis 21

D. Detailed Drawings 22-27D.1 Assembly 22D.2 End Plate 23D.3 Mounting Plate 24D.4 Faucet Hub 25D.5 Housing 26D.6 Pelton Wheel 27

E. Excel Plots 28-29E.1 Efficiency 28E.2 Current 29

F. Materials 30-31

F.1 BOM 30F.2 NPV 31G. Assertions 32

8/10/2019 ME340 6D Rough Draft (1)

5/37

4

1. Introduction 1.1 Problem Statement

A specialized power unit for household use is lacking in the market and a faucetgenerator can fill this role perfectly. The key principle for a product is a device that is convenientfor the consumers as well as marketable and inexpensive for the manufacturers. In order to meet

these standards the faucet generator needed to be: at most four inches long; be self-contained;undisruptive to the flow; under a cost of 60 dollars to produce; and yield 10 volts over 10 ohmresistor. The design must also account for the concerns established through market survey of

potential customers. These characteristics create a market opportunity which has the potential for100,000 units per year for four years. 1.2 Background Information

The key component to a faucet generator is the method by which is retrieves powerfrom the flow. The design can be broken down into 3 main systems, inflow, conversion, andoutflow. Inflow contains the connection from piece to faucet and any change in the velocity or

pressure of the water. Conversion is the turbine and generator. Outflow is the exit of the waterfrom the piece back out to the outside. For the design of this project a Pelton wheel was chosen

as the turbine. Pelton wheels are specifically designed to obtain energy from a high velocity flowvia a nozzle through which the water must go through, and this faucet generator employs suchdevices. A generator is was converts the Pelton wheels mechanical energy i nto electricalenergy, in this instance a Jameco motor will be used as a generator, as they are inexpensive andsmall. The housing for the entire faucet generator is what contains any components not directlyrelated to the water flow, such as the motor, re sistors, and electrical wiring. The housings mostcrucial task is to keep water out, accomplished by tight fittings along with rubber seals. Thegoals and responsibilities of each team member is listed in Appendix A, table A.1 Role SplitChart.1.3 Project Planning

The future outline of the project is planned out to potentially maximize efficiency to prevent overlaps and pauses from waiting for objectives to be completed. With this in mind thenext few weeks are planned out. Materials need to be selected for which the piece will be builtfrom. A DFE will aid in material selection. Also, a DFM/A assessment will be performed toreduce potential costs and optimize final design. Next testing will take place.

To begin testing an alpha prototype needs to be built. The alpha testing can take place toget real data. After the alpha testing phase a beta prototype will be built based upon the results ofthe alpha stage. Simultaneously safety regulations and standards will be examined and applied tothe beta design to aid in progress.

In addition to all the testing there will also be other analysis going on such as an NPVanalysis and a write-up of a BOM. These processes will aid in ease of progression, reduced costand a potentially improved design. A rough plan in the form of a Gantt chart is located inAppendix A.

2. Customer Needs and Specifications 2.1 Identification of Customer Needs

Customer input was obtained by interviewing various customers with different backgrounds; including University professors, retailers, and students. A sample survey can beviewed on on Appendix B.1.

8/10/2019 ME340 6D Rough Draft (1)

6/37

5

The team began by generating and ordering the customer needs based on the surveyresults of the 30 surveys used in the results. Customer inputs are listed on Appendix B.2. Resultsfrom the surveys provided the following needs: high performance, low cost, appearance, ease ofuse and safety, durability, and environmentally friendly. Pairwise Comparison Charts (PCCs)were used in order to numerically rank the customer needs and use a matrix structure to compare

each customer need individually with each other to properly rank each need [2]. A full detailedtable can be viewed on Appendix B.4. Based on the results of the PCCS, the resulting matrix wasused to develop the weighted comparison matrix. The Analytical Hierarchy process (AHP) [2]was used to prioritize the customer needs. In this matrix, the weighted number of each customerneed was the numerator over the weighted number of the other need. This process was repeatedfor each cell unit until a final overall weight reaches a total of 1. A full detailed table can beviewed on Appendix B.3. The customer needs are ranked according to their importance and thenumerical results are shown in Table 1 below.

Table 1 Ranking of needs ResultsCustomer Need PCCs Ranking AHP Weighting

High Performance 1 0.30

Low Cost 2 0.20Appearance 5 0.14Ease of Use/Safety 2 0.20Durability 4 0.14Eco-Friendly 6 0.02

2.2 Design SpecificationsFollowing the customer needs assessment and data collection; evaluations produced the

required design specifications. The ideal values were created by referring to the problemconstraints. Based on all the customer needs and the design specification, a Quality FunctionDeployment matrix (QFD) was created which reflects how each specification relates to thecustomer needs. The QFD matrix can be viewed on Appendix B.5. From the QFD, customer

surveys, and constraints it was determined what design specifications were to be set for conceptgeneration phases, displayed in the Table 2 below with a 1 to 6 scale with 6 being the mostimportant and 1 being the least.

Table 2 List of Engineering SpecificationsMetric Importance Units Ideal Value

Power Generation 6 Watts >25 Watts$50 retail cost 4 Dollars < $50Efficiency 5 Percent 90%Vertical Discharge 4 Degrees 90 DegreesTime until attachment 3 Seconds < 30 Seconds10 Ohm Load 4 Ohms 10 Ohms

Visible internal working 2 Binary YesOne component 1 Binary YesSafe / Nontoxic components 1 Binary YesPositive Electrical Output 6 Volts (+,-) +Length < 4 3 inches < 4 inchesa 3/8-18 NPS internal pipe thread 2 Binary YesProduce minimum of 1.5V 6 Volts >=1.5 Volts

8/10/2019 ME340 6D Rough Draft (1)

7/37

6

3. Concept Development3.1 External Search

One of the first steps in generating concepts after clarifying and establishing the problemis to perform an external search. The search serves a purpose to set a standard of what already

exists in the market. This basis helps to better understand what technology exists, what peoplewant, and what is feasible to produce using modern materials.The first task in an external search is using the results from customer surveys and

evaluations in order to focus research criteria for the actual research process. Patent searcheswhere the most generic searches, when undergoing this process the main goal is to find, in thiscase, what patents relate to hydroelectric power and water accompanying machinery. Nine

patents emanated potential, including: mechanical systems of meshed gears, the Pelton wheel, belt driven generators, magnetic coupling, helical turbines, and paddle wheels (patents 8-15).Subsequently these six technologies became the focus of a concept generation and were dividedinto two categories, turbines and connections. Turbines included the paddle wheel, Pelton wheel,and helical turbine. With the connections including: meshed gears, magnetic coupling, and belt

driven generators. This phase of concept generation expresses its results within the threeconcepts that were thought-out, detailed later in the report.Baseline product comparisons were conducted against other products such as the

Ecolight, the H2O power radio, and Kohlers Moxie . By benchmarking other existing andfunctional products to future designs and concepts, the project has an advantage by improvingupon what already exists. The Ecolight TM produced by Sylvania was one of the ideal products ofthe market, being innovative and powerful [1]. Other benchmarks include the H2O TM powerradio and Kohlers Moxie [1]. All of these designs extract energy from a water flow and providesome entertainment such as music or light as a necessity. Setting a standard with competitive

products also go hand in hand with reverse engineering, which allows for any technology whichcant be improved and is a must for the design to be attained. Turbine technology from each ofthe benchmarked products can be utilized and tweak since it is an established product. So, fromthe products it was concluded that an inline flow turbine with a straight connection is the easiestto do.3.2 Problem Decomposition

In accordance with an external search, problem decomposition allows for the obtainedtechnology and ideas to be applied by breaking down the problem into its basic parts. A black

box model does this by dividing the entire action with which the faucet generator designundergoes into three categories: energy, material, and signal. The materials category is dividedinto two sub-sections: water and the machine. The machine component is further divided into theinflow and outflow tubes and the turbine. The energy section is divided into the stages it willexperience as it travels along. At first the energy will be kinetic with some potential energyemanating from gravity. After the water contacts the turbine it will turn and the energy will beconverted to mechanical energy, further

being converted by the generator intoelectrical energy. The signal section issimply divided into two subsections, theon/off switch and the attachment of the

product to a flow source.

Figure 1. Black BoxDecomposition

8/10/2019 ME340 6D Rough Draft (1)

8/37

7

3.3 Concept Generation With and external search complete and design

specifications set, concept generation began. Using the KISSmethod, keep it simple stupid, Concept 1 had its influences

based off simplicity and cost-effectiveness. Its square shape

and linear part setup allowed for an overall basic concept.With a simple Pelton wheel design and direct attachment fromPelton wheel to generator, the concept has potential for beingeasily manufactured and being water seal tight. The picturedepicts the concept, lacking a Pelton wheel, illustrating thesimplicity of such a design. The flaw behind this idea thoughwas it possibly being an unbalanced product, having its weight distributed over a wide volume.

The second concept had its roots in innovation andaesthetic appeal. Utilizing the TRIZ method, concept 2 was

benchmarked against Ecolight TM, H2O TM power radio,

Kohlers Moxie, and relevant patents [1][4]. The generatedconcept resulted with an inline turbine along with a sleek andslim design. The advantage to such a vertical design was thatof inline turbine, providing a more efficient method ofextracting power from the water flow. The flaw with thisconcept was its future manufacturing. Being able to makeand assembled this part could potentially spell disaster for asystem design.

The third concept generated was an enclosed turbine whichwas motivated by water seal effectiveness and rooted in previousworking devices. This concept was conceived through a post-itnote method, in which any idea that was thought-of would beapplicable to the design. The concept employs a basic paddlewheel design which is inline in the flow and is offset directly nextto the generator using a magnetic coupling device. This set upallows for the generator to be effectively sealed off form the water,disregarding any problems with water sealing. The flaw to thisconcept is its complexity and price associated with magneticcoupling.

3.4 Concept SelectionFrom a decision matrix, placed below, and debate among team members determined that

concept 1 is the best for a faucet generator. It simplicity and in-expensive price give it ameaningful edge in the market. Customer evaluation determined that cost would be significant in

product design specifications. It flaws with weight distribution can be more easily solved thancompared to the other concept flaws. It simplicity would also go hand in hand in themanufacturing process, making this design a potential cost effective product to sell.

Figure 4. Concept 3

Figure 2. Concept 1

Figure 3. Concept 2

Turbine Generator

Turbine

Generator

Turbine

GeneratorInflow

Inflow

Inflow

Outflow

Outflow

Outflow

8/10/2019 ME340 6D Rough Draft (1)

9/37

8

Table 3. Decision Matrix

WaterSeal

Cost Simplicity ProvenMechanisms

Aesthetics Size/Material

Total

Concept 1 0 + + 0 0 - +1

Concept 2 - - - 0 + 0 -2

Concept 3 + - - + + - 0

4. Detailed Design4.1 Non-editorial Changes

Since the completion of the alpha testing phase multiple modifications have been made tothe faucet generator. Most notably the mounting method of the motor, coupling of the Peltonwheel to the motor, the Pelton wheel, rubber faucet insert, and housing have all been updated.The updates were to raise the efficiency, the output voltage, and reduce the leakage. All of theseupdates serve to simplify and fix issues that were unforeseen in the alpha design and have been

adapted for the beta and final design thus far.4.2 Overall Description

Figure 5. Assembly DecompositionThe centerpiece to the faucet generator is the faucet hub which encompasses the Pelton

wheel and acts as a mounting fixture for the remaining components. Within the faucet hub just

8/10/2019 ME340 6D Rough Draft (1)

10/37

9

below where the faucet insert sits is a built in nozzle. The endplates, mounting plate and housingare fixed directly to the faucet hub and serve to seal the entirety of the faucet generator; both theend and mounting plates are transparent as well. The mounting plate is where the Jameco motorand Pelton wheel align with each other, with the Jameco motor secured directly to the mounting

plate. The Pelton wheel incorporates 12 spokes which line up directly with the nozzle to where

the outflow of the faucet hub is situated opposite of the nozzle.4.3 Detailed DrawingsWithin the appendices lie 3 view drawings of the components of the faucet generator that

will need to be produced; consisting of the Pelton wheel, end plates, mounting plate, housing,and faucet hub. Additionally an assembled 3 view drawing of the faucet generator conveys arelationship of overall size of the design. The detailed drawings are located in Appendix D.4.4 Technical Analysis

To find the power generated by the motor the spinning speed of the Pelton needed to bedetermined. The desired speed of the motor shaft is 1500rpm which is directly coupled with thePelton. The maximum power which can be obtained from the flow was 26.09 watts; using afaucet flow rate of 1.5 gallons per min and pressure drop of 40psi with equation (1) Appendix

C.1.(1) Power=(flow rate)*(pressure drop)

With a potential power of 26 watts and desired rpm of 1500 the torque generated by the waterhitting the Pelton was calculated using equation (2) Appendix C.2; with a desired torque of .166

N*m.

(2) Power=(torque)*(angular velocity)

Using equation (3) Appendix C.3, the desired speed of the water flow leaving the nozzle andhitting the Pelton was determined to be 21.94 m/s.

(3) Torque=(mass flow rate)*(V 2)*(radius)

With an assumption of the mass flow rate being constant throughout the system the nozzle radiuscan be determined using equation (4) Appendix C.4; with the V1 and A1 being the flow from thefaucet and v2 being the determined velocity from equation (3). The desired radius of the nozzlewas calculated to be approximately .05 inches.

(4) V1*A1=V2*A2 V1*A1=V2*(pi*r^2)

With desired flow speed from the nozzle achieved with these calculations the output of themotor. The Jameco motor 179463 will be the ideal motor for this faucet generator as thisdesigned speed will generate a decent efficiency 40 % and a current of around .01amps;determined from examining the plots of rpm vs efficiency and rpm vs power figures 4.4A and4.4B located in the appendix.

4.5 Material Selection and DFE

8/10/2019 ME340 6D Rough Draft (1)

11/37

10

The faucet hub is the most critical piece in the entire faucet generator assembly, as everycomponent is fixed to it. Based off this it was determined that an aluminum body would besufficient and more than capable of holding the entire assembly tightly.This material selectionallowed for threaded holes on the faucet hub, making it easier to mount everything else to it. Theremainder of the components: endplates, mounting plate, housing and Pelton wheel would be

made out of plastic; as these components had design requirements that included transparency andsimple designs. The fixtures and miscellaneous parts such as the o-ring and bolts are just goingto be bought from a third party supplier.

A DFE chart placed in Table 4 was created in order to facilitate the design process inregards to environmental concerns. Notable concerns lie within the use of plastic componentsand the overall number of parts. Eco-friendly factors include a compact design that reducesdistribution and packaging concerns and reusing of metal leftovers from the production processof the faucet hub.

Table 4 DFE ProcessSet DFEAgenda

Public image: eco-friendly by producing clean energyProduct quality: using materials that are both environmentally safe andeffective

IdentifyPotentialEnvironmentalImpacts

Natural resource depletion due to metal usePlastics ending up in landfills

Select DFEGuidelines

Using minimum amount of resources where necessary in production andmanufacturingMinimize packaging of product

Application of

Guidelines toinitial productdesign

Thin end plates and mounting plate used to ensure minimum amount of plasticused.Faucet Hub spare material from production can be recycled for future partsCompact design

EnvironmentalImpacts

All materials are chemically safeSome materials can be recycled

Refining theproduct design

Future planning for beta to have a reduction in number of parts, possiblematerial change.

4.6 Manufacture, DFM/AThe intuitive and simple design of the faucet generator greatly reduces the cost of

manufacturing as illustrated in a partial DFM process chart (Table 5). The manufacturing of each part is kept a minimum, for example with only one size fixture being used drill manufacturingtime can be kept at a minimum, while the plastic components all share the same net shape size.The assembly of this design is linear and intuitive, four holes on rigid components create asymmetric assembly easily identify to the manufacturer and consumer on how to put it together.Plastic components can be produced via ejection molding and the aluminum faucet hub can be

produced through casting and subsequently machined to insure quality.

8/10/2019 ME340 6D Rough Draft (1)

12/37

11

Table 5 Partial DFM Process ChartReduce costsof components

Smaller piecesMinimizing manufacturing process (ex. cuts, drills)Keeping design to a minimum complexityStandardized components-all plastic pieces of same shape/size

Reduce costsof assembly

Assembly is linear and intuitiveMinimal fixture placement used 4 bolts in cornersSubassembly assessment

Considerations Simple and basic design overall aids in the reduction of costs formanufacturing

4.7 Industrial DesignThe key focus for the faucet generator during the design process was user interface,

aesthetics, and maintenance. Table 6 contains noted design requirements that were taken intoconsideration. Of the most important were for the faucet generator to contain transparent andsimilar parts. Both the end plate and mounting plate are the same exact design, with themounting plate containing two extra holes; this improves the production speed as there are lessunique parts to manufacturer even though there are many components. The faucet generatorcomprises of design specifications that facilitate production and improve aesthetics

Table 6 Category Design RequirementsUser Interface Light weight

Safe designAppeal/Aesthetics Transparent components

Metal piece gives impression of high quality

Maintenance Adaptable partsEasily repaired

4.8 Cost Analysis4.8.1 Unit Production CostThe BOM, listed fully in Appendix F, highlights the overall cost per unit manufactured

out of a lot of 100,000 units for the faucet generator. The most expensive part is the Faucet hub, being made out of aluminum and its manufacturing time are contributing factors. The remainderof the components are relatively cheap and inexpensive as they are plastic and can be producedthrough injection molding. An abbreviated table is listed below showing the total unit cost foreach component in table 7.

8/10/2019 ME340 6D Rough Draft (1)

13/37

12

Table 7 Bill of MaterialsManufactured PartsComponent Total Unit Cost

Faucet Hub 21.60End Plate (x2) .80Mounting Plate .40Housing 2.80Pelton Wheel 3.02Vendor Supplied PartsComponent Total Unit Cost

Socket Cap Screws M3x6 .70Socket Cap Screws M3x35 .70Jameco Motor #179643 1.45Epoxy 1.05

Total Cost 32.52

4.8.2 Economic Analysis NPVThe faucet generator is a worthy and good investment due to its projected benefits. The

Net Present Value (NPV) is the sum of present values over a specific period of time. The NPV ofthis project for a four year span with a 10% discounted flow rate is $2,700,482. Table 8 showsthe overhead costs of this project. The production cost for each unit is $32.52 and the productwill have a retail price of $50.00 which leads to a unit profit of $17.48. The NPV analysis wascarried out for a four year period split into four quarters. The development cost was determinedon a basis of 4 engineers each working at a salary of $75,000 per year. The table below showsthe overhead costs of this project. A full NPV table is located on Appendix F. This product

proves to be efficient economically and can benefit both the consumer and the manufacturer.Table 8 NPV Development cost -75000Ramp-up cost -5000Marketing and support cost -10000Production cost -813000Production volume 25000Unit production cost -32.52Sales revenue 1250000Sales volume 25000Period Cash Flow -1716000Unit Price 50Total NPV $2700482

4.9 Safety To meet safety expectations the faucet generator has built-in features that ensure the

consumers well -being. The aluminum in contact with water must be regulated in order to makesure drinking water stays clean, in accordance with EPA Standards [16]. The Jameco motor and

8/10/2019 ME340 6D Rough Draft (1)

14/37

13

electrical wiring for the power source are isolated from the terminal where the pelton wheel sits,coincidently the water seals on that terminal are to be tight. Plastic components offer many safetyfeatures, unlike other transparent mater ials such as glass which dont have long service life and is

brittle [17]. With any component, especially the aluminum faucet hub, all edges are to sandeddown to prevent collateral. The faucet generator incorporates well known safety features that

make this device safe to be used.

4.10 Actual Construction Process of Beta Prototype Following the design printouts from the detailed design report multiple machine

processes were carried out. Most of the components where acrylic with two dimensional featuresand therefore were laser cut to size, including the endplates, mounting plate, and housing. Themost detailed component was the main hub, which was cut to a near net shape from 6061Aluminum with the OMAX abrasive water jet cutter. Followed by milling operations to achievethreaded holes, a nozzle, and the in/out flow ports. The Jameco motor was then mounted directlyto the mounting plate followed by a permanent attachment of the final pelton wheel design ontothe motor shaft. Assembly of the faucet generator was fairly simple after production, as the linear

design requires a few bolts to be in place.The endplate of the housing at the end of the beta construction was altered due to a limitin bolt dimensions, therefore a tightfitting endcap was constructed which created an interferencefit between it and the housing , proving more effective than the original design. Additionallyglue sealant replaced the bolt fixtures in order to contain water leakage and fix the parts together.

Main Hub

Housing UnitAssembled device

8/10/2019 ME340 6D Rough Draft (1)

15/37

14

5.1.1 Alpha Phase TestingThe alpha test phase resulted in crucial information that advanced the design of the faucet

generator. Modifications including the shaft coupling of motor to pelton wheel, pelton wheeldesign and the motor mounting were conceived during the alpha prototype phase. The alpha

model consisted of a simplistic version of the faucet hub, consisting of two parts: one for thefaucet attachment and nozzle and the other part for retaining the pelton wheel. Table 9 highlightsthe attention to certain details that were discovered during the alpha testing phase. Theexperimental procedure was creating the parts previously mentioned that were consistent to thedimensions of the detailed design drawing views; assembling the components; and then runningwater through the entire model.

Table 9 Alpha Prototype AdvancementsDiscipline Actions BenefitsShaft Coupling Moved from using a couple to

the direct connection of motor

stock shaft to pelton wheel

Cost effective

Water Sealing Without an o-ring water leakagewas minimal, consequently theadoption of an o-ring willsuppress worries of waterleaking.

Maintains safety andwater sealing

Nozzle Using the drill head of the wideflow just ahead of the nozzleintake to create a chamfer thatleads into the nozzle radius

Saves manufacturing time

Pelton Wheel Used a less complex pelton

wheel design that was moreeffective than anticipated

Reduces complexity of

pelton wheel

5.1.2 Beta Test PlanThe Beta phase will be a conclusion to the design process that aims to illustrate problems

with assembling components, overall rigidity, power production and water outflow. Specialattention will be directed at the outflow from the faucet generator as it is crucial for a substantialstream to remain. Coinciding with outflow is the power production values as the beta test willconclude the power output of the final design and determine whether any modifications need to

be made. The assembling and stiffness of the model will be also be explored to insure that previous assumptions still stand. In addition tachometer data will be taken in order to examine

performance speed of the pelton wheel at various flows. The planned beta process is documentedin Table 10, highlighting the purpose, experimentation and level of approximation.

Table 10 Beta Prototype PlanPurposes Assembly modification

Rigidity of componentsOutflow demonstrationPower Production

8/10/2019 ME340 6D Rough Draft (1)

16/37

15

Pelton Wheel PerformanceLevel ofApproximation

Material selectionsFaucet hub accurately depictedMotor and pelton wheel direct connectionPelton to accurate design

ExperimentalPlan

Construction of housing and subassemblies described in detailed designdrawingsMeasurements of power production and outflowTachometer

5.2 Test Results and DiscussionWith tachometer data from the beta; pelton wheel speeds achieved a maximum of 850

RPM on learning factory faucet providing 1.54 volts over a 10 ohm load; therefore the majorconcern for the design was water leakage and its effect on the pelton wheel performance. Eventhough the pelton wheel speed proved to be adequate, the predicted RPM of the pelton was to bearound 1400 Rpm (Appendices C3). This Rpm of 1400 was achieved in the alpha testing phaseonly because there was no water buildup around the pelton wheel due to the alpha main hubdesign. This shortfall is present in the beta prototype because water becomes trapped within thedevice, creating a vortex in the pelton wheel cavity that hinders its movement. Regardless ofwater leakage affects the nozzle calculation for a radius of .05 inches was precise (AppendicesC2), illustrated by the alpha design reaching a maximum rpm of 1400.

In testing the beta prototype the bolt fittings for the end and mounting plate proved to bea significant source of water leakage, on the other hand the easy assembly due to bolt fittingssave plenty of time in constructing the device. Surprisingly without an O-ring on the motor shaftthere was minimal leakage into the motor housing area. Most water leakage occurred on themating surfaces between the main hub and endcap and mounting plates. In response watersealant was subsequently used in these locations to minimize leakage and it proved affective.

Unfortunately without this water leakage the water had to go somewhere else and it did leak intothe water housing on the high power faucet tests in Reber, but in the learning factory the device

proved very successful in containing the water.Outflow of the device was not-adequate to the design specifications of 50% original flow

rate; the outflow stream observed was not uniform. During the design process it was unknown onwhat design factors could maximize the outflow, consequently the neglecting of suchspecifications led to a failure of design in regards to outflow.

6.1 ConclusionThe economic investigation into the product demonstrates that the adoption of such

venture will be beneficial and profitable. Manufacturing and material selections make the faucet

generator an easy to adopt product that can have industrial facilities easily adapt to produce inmass quantities. The offering price for retail is set at the maximum threshold but the image ofquality that the faucet generator portrays along with its simple design will be its selling point.

6.2 Recommendations Qualities for improvement include removal of all bolt fittings and replacing them with

glued surface fixtures. This will be two fold, the sealant property of the glue will greatly improvewater leakage as the uneven tightening of bolts causes gaps between mating surfaces allowing

8/10/2019 ME340 6D Rough Draft (1)

17/37

16

for water to leak. In addition this will drastically reduce production time by removing the processes of drilling and tapping.

A major improvement that needs to be considered is that of the outflow, in how theoutflow port can be designed to achieve a smooth laminar flow that is ideal for the customer.

A drastic change that can be made is to replace the main hub with a plastic component

instead, though this may prove troubling and might eventually lead to an overall design change.The benefits would be noticeable, for example production costs would be cut by more than halfas there is no aluminum machining or cutting to perform. Unfortunately the built in nozzle in themain hub will have to be relocated within the faucet generator, as it is dependent on thealuminum main hub.

6.3 Knowledge GainedAn understanding of the relationship between designs on paper and their subsequent

manufacturing was gained, vital to an engineering career. Somewhat simple designs can prove to be a hassle in building or manufacturing, emphasizing the idea of design for manufacturing.Team work was crucial to the overall success of this project; learning how to deliberate tasks,

communicate and coming to an understanding with each other was a difficult hardship toovercome in the beginning of the project. The importance of every tasks role in this design process was also demonstrated, if any task were to be neglected this would have a negativeimpact on the design process further on. This project introduced the basic goal of engineering; tocreate a design product from qualitative results and quantitative calculations. The small nature ofthis project illustrated how complex building a faucet generator can be and how later on projectsfor companies or research will be exponentially harder, emphasizing every piece of knowledgegained from this project.

8/10/2019 ME340 6D Rough Draft (1)

18/37

17

7. References

a) Benchmark Products

[1] "Ecolight: LED Water Powered Shower Light." Assets.sylvania.com . Sylvania, n.d. Web. 3Mar. 2014.

[2] "Moxie Single-Function Showerhead with Wireless Speaker." KOHLER | K-9245 | MoxieSingle-Function Showerhead with Wireless Speaker, 2.5 GPM . Moxie, n.d. Web. 3 Mar.2014.

[3] "Water Power Radio by H2O: Home." Water Power Radio by H2O RSS . H2O, n.d. Web. 3Mar. 2014.

b) Customer Needs Analysis

[4] Dym, C.L. and Little, P., Engineering Design: A Project-Based Introduction, 2nd Edition,

New York: John Wiley and Sons, 2003.[5] Saaty, T.L. Axiomatic Foundation of the Analytical Hierarchy Process, Management

Science, vol. 32, no.7, pp. 841-855, 1986.

[6] Saaty, T.L. Highlights and Critical Points in the Theory and Application o f the AnalyticalHierarchy Process, European Journal of Operational Resea rch, vol. 74, pp. 426-447,1994.

[7] Fluid Mechanics: Fundamentals and Applications by Yunus A. engel and John M. Cimbala,3rdb Edition, McGraw-Hill Publishing Company

c) Patents

[8] Hatakeyama, Makoto, Masahiro Kuroishi, Naoyuki Onodera, Tomoko Sato, and TakeshiShimizu. Power Generator for Faucet. Makoto Hatakeyama, assignee. Patent WO2008026537 A1. 6 Mar. 2008. Print.

[9] Kullmann, Donald J. Magnetic Coupling. Badger Meter Mfg Co, assignee. Patent US3248583 A. 26 Apr. 1966. Print.

[10] Kuroishi, Masahire, Naoyuki Onodera, and Tomoko Sato. Faucet Hydroelectric Generator.Toto Ltd, assignee. Patent US 8461705 B2. 11 June 2013. Print.

[11] Kuroishi, Masahiro, Naoyuki Onodera, Tomoko Sato, and Takeshi Shimizu. FaucetGenerator. Toto Ltd., assignee. Patent EP 2293420 A1. 9 Mar. 2011. Print.

[12] Looke, Richard B. Paddle-wheel. Patent US 21892 A. 26 Oct. 1858. Print.[13] Meazza, Gianpiero, and Brizzi M. Rovaro. Process for Manufacturing Hydraulic Turbine.

Voith Riva Hydro S.p.A., assignee. Patent EP 0892173 A1. 20 Jan. 1999. Print.

[14] Park, Jin-Soon, Ki-Dai Yum, Kwang-soo Lee, Sok-Kuh Kang, Jae-Youll Jin, and Woo-SunPark. Power Generation System Using Helical Turbine. Korea Ocean Research AndDevelopment Institute, assignee. Patent US 8308424 B2. 13 Nov. 2012. Print.

8/10/2019 ME340 6D Rough Draft (1)

19/37

18

[15] Pigozzi, Gian M. Gearbox with Permanently-meshed Gears. IVECO FIAT S.p.A., assignee.Patent EP 0253782 B1. 9 May 1990. Print.

d) Additional references

[16] "Drinking Water Contaminants." Home . N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Apr. 2014..

[17] "Glass vs. Acrylic: a Comparision." Hydrosight . N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Apr. 2014..

8/10/2019 ME340 6D Rough Draft (1)

20/37

19

8. Appendices

Appendix A Project Management

A.1 Role Split ChartPersons Skills Strengths WeaknessesChristian Gobert Solidworks, Matlab Hard-working, logical Passive, Busy

Peter Baldwin Solidworks, Microsoft Dedicated, Perfectionist Indecisive, Conservative

Ghassan Sendi Microsoft, AutoCAD Reliable, Devoted Picky, Often Late

A.2 Gantt ChartA.2 Gantt ChartTask Date Week 12 Week 13 Week 14 Week 15Alpha PrototypeAlpha reviewBeta PrototypeBeta reviewProduction unit buildFinal Report

Appendix B Customer Needs Analysis

B.1 Customer Survey

Gender: Male ------- Female -------

Degree of importance:

VeryImportant

Important Moderate Notimportant

Dont Know

Performance

Cost

Appearance

Size/Weight

Durability

Reliability

Ease of use

8/10/2019 ME340 6D Rough Draft (1)

21/37

20

Related Questions:1) What is your current field or field of interest?

2) What do you desire in an ideal faucet power generator? 3) What do you think us the acceptable price for a power faucet generator? 4) Do you have any knowledge or preferences about this product?

B.2 Customer survey results

Question StatementCustomer 1

(1) I am the store manager of HomeDepot at State College.

(2) I would expect to a verticaldischarge and efficient power.

(3) I would pay up to $65 (4) I would like it to be easy to use and

install, be durable and not leak; also Iwould like it to have an acceptable

design that will not get on my way. Customer 2

(1) I am currently studying MechanicalEngineering at Penn State.

(2) I would expect to save electricity and

produce a consistent water flow. (3) I would pay $60 (4) I would like a light on the front, and

that it is easy to use andenvironmentally friendly.

Customer 3(1) I am a Professor of Mechanical

Engineering at Penn state University (2) Three things; high performance and

efficiency, low cost, and durability. (3) I would pay $55 (4) I would definitely want a good

design that will make the most of theturbine and produce consistent water

flow and most importantly notcomplicated to use.

WaterDischarge

Note: 30 different surveyswere generated and wereincluded in the overallresults; however only thetop three survey results wereselected as references.

8/10/2019 ME340 6D Rough Draft (1)

22/37

21

(4) I would definitely want a gooddesign that will make the most of theturbine and produce consistent water

flow and most importantly notcomplicated to use.

B.3 AHP Ranking

A B C D E F Total Rank

A x 1 1 1 1 1 5 1

B -1 x 1 0 1 1 2 2

C -1 -1 x -1 0 1 -2 5

D -1 0 1 x 1 1 2 3

E -1 -1 0 -1 x 1 -2 4

F -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 x -5 6

The customer needs were placed into a screening matrix to comparethe importance of each customer need. The ranking of the customerneeds can be defined from 1 to -1 ((1) weight more important, (0) asimportant, and (-1) less important).

B.4 PCCs Ranking

A HighPerformance

B Low Cost

C Appearance

D Ease ofuse/Safety

E Durability

F Eco Friendly

A B C D E F Total Weight

A x 6/4 6/3 6/4 6/3 6/1 13 0.30

B 4/6 x 4/3 4/4 4/3 4/1 8.34 0.20

C 3/6 3/4 x 3/4 3/3 3/1 6 0.14

D 4/6 4/4 4/3 X 4/3 4/1 8.34 0.20

E 3/6 3/4 3/3 3/4 x 3/1 6 0.14

8/10/2019 ME340 6D Rough Draft (1)

23/37

22

B.5 QFD Matrix

F 1/6 1/4 1/3 1/4 1/3 x 1.32 0.02

PowerGeneration

Efficiency $50retailcost

Timeto

install

VerticalDischarge

Length

8/10/2019 ME340 6D Rough Draft (1)

24/37

23

Appendix C Numerical AnalysisC.1 Faucet Power

Power Analysis variables Values

Faucet Flow rate 1.5gpm=9.463*10^-5 m^3/s

Flow pressure 40psi=275790.29 Pa

HighPerformance

X X X X

Low Cost X

AttractiveAppearance

X

Easy toInstall

X X X

Does notdelay Faucet

function

X X

Self-Contained

X

Safety andFunction

Reliability

X

Ease ofMaintenance

X X

Eco Friendly X

8/10/2019 ME340 6D Rough Draft (1)

25/37

24

Power=flow rate*pressure drop (9.463*10^-5 m^3/s)*( 275790.29 Pa)=26.099 Watts

C.2 Nozzle Calculation

Nozzle Calculation variables ValuesDiameter of faucet 3/8=.009525m Area of faucet head=A1 Pi*(.009525)^2Volumetric flow rate=V1*A1 V1=.33203m/sFrom Bernoulli equation V2=23.48m/sEqual mass flow rates Radius of nozzle=.001133m=.0446in

C.3 Pelton Wheel Calculation

Pelton Wheel Calculation Variables ValuesTorque=mass flow rate*V2*r .1777 N*mPower=torque*angular velocity Angular velocity=146.871 rad/s=1394.2RPM

C.4 Economic Analysis

Monetary Analysis ValuesMain Hub $4.55 per partMotor Jameco #174693 $5.00 per partFront Endcap $2.00 per partRear Housing $30.00 per partMachine Screws $1.00 per setNozzle $1.41 per partPelton Wheel $10.22 per partTotal Price $54.18 per faucet generator

Appendix D Detailed DrawingsD.1 Assembly

8/10/2019 ME340 6D Rough Draft (1)

26/37

25

D.2 End Plate

8/10/2019 ME340 6D Rough Draft (1)

27/37

26

D.3 Mounting Plate

8/10/2019 ME340 6D Rough Draft (1)

28/37

27

D.4 Faucet Hub

8/10/2019 ME340 6D Rough Draft (1)

29/37

28

D.5 Housing

8/10/2019 ME340 6D Rough Draft (1)

30/37

29

D.6 Pelton Wheel

8/10/2019 ME340 6D Rough Draft (1)

31/37

30

Appendix E Excel Plots (Source: William the TA)

8/10/2019 ME340 6D Rough Draft (1)

32/37

31

E.1 Efficiency

Figure 4.4A

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000

Efficiency %

Shaft Speed (RPM)

Efficiency

238473

206949

238465

Series4

2120461

174693

8/10/2019 ME340 6D Rough Draft (1)

33/37

32

E.2 Current

Figure 4.4b

Appendix F Materials

-0.4

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000

Currnet (Amps)

Shaft Speed (RPM)

Current

238473

206949

238465

Series4

2120461

174693

8/10/2019 ME340 6D Rough Draft (1)

34/37

33

F.1 BOMTable 4.8.1A Bill of Materials

Manufactured Parts

Component Material Cost Processing Assembly Quantity Total Unit Cost

Faucet Hub 2.25/part 19.35/part - 1 21.60End Plate .25/part .15/part - 2 .80Mounting Plate .25/part .15/part - 1 .40

Housing 2.55/part .25/part - 1 2.80Pelton Wheel .67/part .85/part 1.50/part 1 3.02

Vendor Supplied PartsComponent Cost Assembly - Quantity Total Unit Cost

Socket CapScrews M3x6

.10/part .30 - 4 .70

Socket CapScrews M3x35

.10/part .30 - 4 .70

Jameco Motor#179643

1.15/part .30 - 1 1.45

Epoxy .05/part 1.00 - 1 1.05

Total Cost 32.52

F.2 NPV

8/10/2019 ME340 6D Rough Draft (1)

35/37

34

8/10/2019 ME340 6D Rough Draft (1)

36/37

35

Appendix G Assertions

Christian Gobert- I focused my writing on the Introduction and System Design Sections of this proposal. For the system design I took charge due to my heavy involvement with Solidworks indeveloping the proposed design. In addition I worked with Ghassan Sendi in annotating the

Appendices and Peter Baldwin on the conclusion. For the DDR, I did the CAD drawings,detailed analysis, the changes since the project proposal, and built the prototypes. For the FPR Icomplete the beta prototype and discussed test results and the manufacturing of its design.

Ghassan Sendi- I was responsible for the customer need analysis data. 30 surveys were createdthat included face to face interviews. Various customers were surveyed and provided detailedfeedback. The data gathered created the weighting of customer needs (PCCS, AHP, and QFD)and listed all the design specifications to start the concept development process. In addition Iworked with Christian Gobert in formatting and writing the Appendices. For the DDR, I did theeconomic analysis and the NPV chart, also, recorded testing data for alpha. For the FPR I

completed the beta prototype and assisted with the conclusion.

Peter Baldwin- I dealt with all of the methodology revolving around section 3 of the proposaland the conclusion. In addition I was in charge of making sure the entire report was in sync andformatted appropriately, along with figures and pictures. I also completed the references for allsections of the report as well. For the DDR, I revised the project proposal, worked on the safetyand industrial design sections and finalized/compiled the report. For the FPR I reviewed theentire report, correcting all mistakes, and wrote about the recommendations.

By signing this document we all attest that it provides an accurate representation of ourindividual efforts in the completion of this work.Date:_____________

Member Name Printed: _________________________Signature:_____________________________

Member Name Printed: _________________________Signature:_____________________________

Member Name Printed: _________________________Signature:_____________________________

8/10/2019 ME340 6D Rough Draft (1)

37/37