1

The Pennsylvania State University
Department of Mechanical and Nuclear Engineering

Wind Power Generator
Project Proposal

Jonathan Matteson Joseph Manginelli Jeff Irwin

2

Table of Contents
Executive Summary (Joseph Manginelli) .................................................................................................... 43 Problem Statement (Joseph Manginelli) .................................................................................................... 43 Project Objectives (Jeff Irwin) ..................................................................................................................... 43 Customer Needs (Jeff Irwin) ....................................................................................................................... 54 Design Process Summary (Jonathan Matteson) ......................................................................................... 54 Design Concepts .......................................................................................................................................... 76 Design Concept 1 (Jonathan Matteson).................................................................................................. 76 Design Concept 2 (Jonathan Matteson).................................................................................................. 87 Design Concept 4 (Jeff Irwin) .................................................................................................................. 98 Design Concept 5 (Joseph Manginelli) .................................................................................................. 109 CAD Drawing of Wind Turbine (Jonathan Matteson) ............................................................................. 1110 Design Specifications (Joseph Manginelli) .............................................................................................. 1412 Summary of Analysis (Jeff Irwin) ............................................................................................................. 1412 Discussion For Teachers (Joseph Manginelli) ......................................................................................... 1614 Project Management Plan (Jonathan Matteson) .................................................................................... 1715 Fabrication Process: (Jonathan Matteson) ............................................................................................. 1816 Testing Results and Design Revisions (Jeff Irwin) ................................................................................... 1917 Budget and Materials (Jeff Irwin)............................................................................................................ 2018 Team Reflection: (Jonathan Matteson) .................................................................................................. 2220 Appendix A: Gantt Charts....................................................................................................................... 2321 Appendix C: Design Specifications .......................................................................................................... 2623 Executive Summary (Joseph Manginelli) ...................................................................................................... 3 Problem Statement (Joseph Manginelli) ...................................................................................................... 3 Project Objectives (Jeff Irwin) ....................................................................................................................... 3 Customer Needs (Jeff Irwin) ......................................................................................................................... 4 Design Process Summary (Jonathan Matteson) ........................................................................................... 4 Design Concepts ............................................................................................................................................ 6 Design Concept 1 (Jonathan Matteson).................................................................................................... 6 Design Concept 2 (Jonathan Matteson).................................................................................................... 7 Design Concept 4 (Jeff Irwin) .................................................................................................................... 8 Design Concept 5 (Joseph Manginelli) .................................................................................................. 910
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Check spelling and grammar Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Check spelling and grammar Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Check spelling and grammar Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Check spelling and grammar Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Check spelling and grammar Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Check spelling and grammar Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Check spelling and grammar Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Check spelling and grammar Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Check spelling and grammar

3 CAD Drawing of Wind Turbine (Jonathan Matteson) ............................................................................. 1112 Design Specifications (Joseph Manginelli) .............................................................................................. 1112 Summary of Analysis (Jeff Irwin) ............................................................................................................. 1213 Discussion For Teachers (Joseph Manginelli) ......................................................................................... 1415 Project Management Plan (Jonathan Matteson) ...................................................................................... 910 Fabrication Process: (Jonathan Matteson) ............................................................................................. 1516 Testing Results and Design Revisions (Jeff Irwin) 1617 Appendix A: Gantt Charts....................................................................................................................... 1718 Appendix B: Bill of Materials ................................................................................................................... 1920 Appendix C: Design Specifications .......................................................................................................... 2021
Formatted: Normal, Tab stops: Not at 6.49" Formatted: Font:

4

Executive Summary (Joseph Manginelli)
The contents of this report include the project proposal and design process by Group 58 of ME 340 for the development of a Teaching Teachers Engineering (TTE) wind turbine kit. The group was challenged to produce a working model of a TTE kit within 7 weeks and on a budget of $100. In order to determine the customer needs for the TTE kit, section 5 of ME 340 interviewed Susan Stewart of the Aerospace Engineering and Architectural Engineering Departments. In addition to staying within the budget, the primary drivers for the design were reusability, ease of assembly, stability of the base and variability in terms of what the user can change on the kit. The quality of blade design in terms of the power output of the turbine was also important. Through internal and external research, a final design was chosen that satisfied the primary drivers most effectively. The TTE kit is meant to be used with a box fan which creates a “swirling” wind which does not move in directions completely perpendicular to the fan assembly. . Blades, which can be set at any angle thanks to the hub design, catch the wind and rotate the fan’s shaft, which in turn causes the entire gear assembly and the generator’s shaft to rotate. Two banana plug receivers are connected to the generator so that a multi-meter can take any necessary measurements. The wind turbine allows for easy assembly and repair due to its use of standard components and lack of permanent connections such as welds and press-fits. The cost for this turbine was approximately $50.
Comment [TAL1]: you can drop the proposal now.

Formatted: Font color: Red

Problem Statement (Joseph Manginelli)
Group 58 was challenged to design, construct and test a table-top windmill kit that will be used in teacher workshops. The goal of these workshops is to prepare teachers to get their students interested in wind energy and allow them to learn about it as well. The kit must be able to be used by young students and must fit in a small container. The TTE kit must be able to operate in winds up to 20 mph. It was originally requested that the turbine be self-aligning, but it must only be able to handle winds from a head-on direction. This removed a significant degree of difficulty from the design because it does not have to be self-aligning.
Formatted: Not Highlight

Formatted: Not Highlight

Project Objectives (Jeff Irwin)
Our team’s objective for this project is to design, construct and test a table-top windmill kit that will be used in teacher workshops. The kit will:          cost less than $100 be aesthetically pleasing perform as efficiently as possible be durable and require minimum maintenance have educational value be easy to repeatedly assemble and disassemble be safe be compact allow for creativity and fun

5 After making improvements to this design, we will construct a functional beta prototype by the end of the project to be tested against other student prototypes. If our team’s design is judged to be the best in the class, then we will advance to the Learning Factory Showcase.

Customer Needs (Jeff Irwin)
The team was able to interview Dr. Stewart, who works with the Pennsylvania Wind for Schools Program, which currently uses KidWind kits. Dr. Stewart had several recommendations. First, KidWind kits only allow voltage to be measured, not power as in the real world. Second, a set of instructions would be helpful, especially for the multimeter which has caused confusion in the past. Third, students and teachers should be able to design and make their own blades for the kit. Finally, a gear box which allows for changing of gear ratios would be interesting. The team was also provided a number of evaluation criteria and design constraints by Dr. Litzinger. These criteria included cost, aesthetics, performance, durability, educational value, ease of assembly/disassembly, safety, compactness, and creativity/fun. Additionally, the product was constrained to ideally be assembled without tools and to contain at least one part made by rapid prototyping or water jet. From the information provided by Dr. Stewart and Dr. Litzinger, we concluded that the following customer needs must be satisfied:             kit needs to include instructions/lesson plan kit needs to allow measurement of voltage and power kit needs to include a base and allow for interchangeable blades kit needs to fit inside an 11.5 in × 6 in × 4 in container kit needs to be assembled with no tools repeatedly kit needs to be educational for children of age 8 – 14 years kit needs to operate in varying wind speeds up to 20 mph kit needs to operate untended kit needs to include standard interface for test instrumentation kit needs to use permanent magnet DC motor for generator kit needs to include at least one part fabricated by FDM, water jet, CNC, or casting methods kit needs to cost less than $100

Design Process Summary (Jonathan Matteson)
After the team met with Dr. Stewart to develop customer needs;, the team moved on developing various different design concepts. The team held meetings in order to get everyone on the same page. In these meetings, it was discussed what component would be rapid prototyped, what materials would be consider for building the turbine, as well as any initial turbine ideas. The team went to 23 Reber in order to get a sense of what materials were available to use and what materials might need to be ordered. The next step was for each team member to develop two different designs and share them with all team members.

6 Once all group members had seen each design, a Selection Matrix was used in order to narrow the design ideas. The matrix, presented in Table 1, incorporates the following selection criteria determined to be most critical: size, reusability, assembled without tools, ease of assembly, allows for multiple gear ratios, and structural stability. After scoring completed by all team members, it was decided to continue working on designs #1 and #6. The two designs were analyzed, and modified in order to come up with a design everyone agreed on.

Table 1: Selection Matrix:
Design Number 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 5 4 -1 -2 2 3 no no

Selection Criteria: Unassembled Size Reusability Assembled without tools Ease of Assembly Allows for multiple gear ratios Structure Stability Plus Minus Same Net Rank Continue ?

1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 1 yes

2 + 0 0 1 3 1 -2 3 no

5 + 0 0 1 3 2 -2 3 no

6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 1 yes

All team members took part in external search efforts in order to generate their design concepts. The website http://learn.kidwind.org/ was used, which was suggested by Dr. Stewart, in order to get a general sense of what one of these wind kits typically entailed. The team explored the site and found some videos depicting different designs of wind turbines. The hub design idea was developed from a few of the designs found on this website. The design allows for easy addition of blades, as well as the flexibility to change blade pitches and number of blades very easily. Multiple Google searches on wind turbine kits provided a number of ideas for gear box designs. Several designs were found that allowed for a variety different gear sizes to be used, and this inspired some of our design concepts to allow for different gears to be used when testing the turbine. All team members used online parts catalogs in order to research different parts that could be used to construct the turbine. Sites such as www.jameco.com and www.mcmaster.com were used for this purpose. When selecting the bearings to use there was extensive search done in order to pick the correct bearing for this application. Since no team member was familiar with self-lubricating sleeve bearings, the team did some research online in order to see if they would balancemitigate thrust from the shaft. After watching videos and looking at technical drawings online the team determined that ball bearings would be more suitable for this application.

Comment [TAL2]: balance

Comment [TAL3]: Nice work!

7

Design Concepts
Each design Concept doesn’tNone of the design concepts take into consideration any blade designs because they will be designed by the students. These designs allow for students to create their own blade designs, change the number of blades, as well as change blade pitch. Teachers can make it into a competition to see which turbine will generate the most power. By plugging a multi-meter into the banana plug jacks, power can be measured toyou can determine which turbine generates the most poweris the best.

Comment [TAL4]: don't switch persons here. -power can be measured to determine ....

Design Concept 1 (Jonathan Matteson)

This design incorporates a base made from PVC pipe and connecting T-joints. It is assembled into a square geometry with one tower leading up to the gear box. The gear box is made from two machined aluminum platforms held together using bolts and wing nuts. The gear box is bracketed onto the PVC pipe. The generator is bracketed onto the bottom plate. The hub is rapid prototyped and is connected a metal shaft supported by two bearings. The shaft is then connected to the generator using a system of gears. This design does not take into account the blade designs because this will be up to the student to design.

8 One advantage of this design is that everything is fastened together using ¼” bolts and ¼” wing nuts, this allows the entire turbine to be assembled by hand. It features an adjustable gear box so that the students can raise or lower the top platform to experiment with different gear ratios. The hub is designed to allow students to experiment with different blade angles and number of blades.

Design Concept 2 (Jonathan Matteson)

This design features a base made entirely from PVC pie and connecting T-joints. This base features two legs for stability, as well as a tower that connects to the shaft casing. The shaft itself sits in a piece of PVC pipe, attached to the base using a T-joint. The shaft is supported by two bearings glued into the PVC

9 pipe, and features the same rapid prototyped hub as in design #1. The other end of the shaft connects to the gearing that transfers power to the generator. The generator is zip-tied to the PVC piping and wire leads go to the banana plug jacks

Design Concept 4 (Jeff Irwin)

This design features a rapid-prototyped hub, with two halves held together by washers and wing nuts on a ¼” shaft threaded on one end. The other end of the shaft is machined to a 3 mm diameter to fit the gear. The shaft passes through two flange-mounted bearings which are attached to two aluminum plates. The plates are held together by bolts and wing nuts. The gear connected to the shaft drives a worm gear which is connected to the generator, which is clamped to one of the plates. The entire system is clamped to a base made of PVC pipes.

10

Design Concept 5 (Joseph Manginelli)

This design very much resembles Concept 1. The gear box is identical in that is uses the same concept of two aluminum plates to be used as platforms that can be raised and lowered so that gears can be aligned if multiple gears were available. The hub is also rapid prototyped, but only has 6 slots for fan blades as opposed to twelve. The only significant difference is the base design. The base is more tablelike, with a half-section cut out of two ends of the PVC pipe so that the gear box can sit neatly on a flat surface. This design allows for some more security in terms of tipping. Compared to a vertical tower base, this design minimizes some of the moment that is caused by the force of the wind on the system because there is no vertical shaft that rotates freely. However, this design does not take into account the method which the height can be adjusted so that the blades are not hitting the ground. There is also no stability between the two “table legs” to prevent them from slipping out from underneath the gear box. It may also prove to be too large to fit into our container.

Comment [TAL5]: I can't quite see this in the design?

11

CAD Drawing of Wind Turbine (Jonathan Matteson)

Comment [TAL6]: You need to have some discussion of your model, which looks good, by the way. You should discuss key features of the design. You should include the drawings for your hub and also detailed drawings to show your bearing shaft arrangement as well as your gears.

Full Model

12

The Solidworks drawing showed above is the complete representation of Team 58’s wind turbine. The design above is the final design concept as members would envision it. The model consists of several components. There is the base made from 7 sections of PVC piping and 3 T-joints. There are the gear box plates, on which the generator, gearing, shaft, and bearings are mounted. There is also the hub design into which there is the option of inserting 12 blades.

Gear Box Assembly

13
Formatted: Font color: Red

Shaft

Gear

Bearing

Pinion

Motor and Mount Banana Plug Jack

Depicted above is a representation of the gear box assembly for this wind turbine. Here there are two aluminum plates that slide up and down on four 3” bolts. The reason they slide up and down is to allow for different sized gears to be experimented with. For larger gears on the shaft or generator the top plate can be adjusted upwards in order to provide for appropriate gear meshing. Other features visible in this picture are the generator, which is mounted to the bottom gear box plate. The banana plug jacks can also be seen mounted to the bottom gear box plate. Mounted to the top plate are the two bearings, which allow the shaft to spin level and with minimum friction. Hub Design

14 Depicted above is the hub designed in Solidworks. This hub design was taken to the Learning Factory where it was rapid prototyped into an actual part. The picture above only depicts half of the part, so that the inside is visible, in reality this part is two identical halves that close together in order to secure the created blades. This design has 12 identical slots for a ¼” dowel rod to be inserted into. Another unique feature of this design is the ridges, which can be seen in each of the 12 holes. These ridges have been incorporated in order to help grab the blades so that they won’t fly out of the hub when the turbine spins.

Design Specifications (Joseph Manginelli)
The team established design specifications based upon the performance of our alpha-prototype and the customer needs statements, which we formed earlier in the design process. The performance specifications are baselines for the final design. The final model should either equal or surpass its predecessor in most categories. A complete bill of materials and list of specifications can be found in Appendix B and Appendix C, respectively. The customer needs statements which we focused on the facts that the TTE kit has to be small enough to fit our container and that assembly must be easy and uncomplicated. Focusing on the fact that the entire kit has to fit into a box 11.5”x6”x4, we were able to construct a base that is wide enough to provide stability while still small enough to fit into the container. We chose to make the base out of PVC piping because it was easy to manipulate and also light enough for teacher to transport without difficulty. Focusing on the idea of ease of manufacturing, we chose to create a gear box which that utilized just long spade-head bolts and wing nuts. Choosing to go with wing nuts over the conventional hex nut allows the user to make alterations and repairs without the use of hand tools. We also chose to create a gear box which that utilizes pre-bracketed ball bearings and a bracket for our engine. Compared to a design which has a permanently mounted engine and press-fitted bearings, our design allows for both easier replacement and less repair time if either the bearings or engine were to fail.

Comment [TAL7]: Small and important enough that it should be in the main report.

Comment [TAL8]: This is not a sentence?

Comment [TAL9]: A nice find!

Summary of Analysis (Jeff Irwin)
One of the objectives of this project is for the kit turbine to perform as efficiently as possible. Aside from minimizing frictional losses in the bearings and gears, the only components which that affect efficiency are the blades, motor/generator, and gear ratioEfficiency can be improved by minimizing frictional losses in the bearings and gears, changing the blade design, using a different motor/generator, and changing the gear ratio. The key blade variables affecting efficiency are: N = number of blades Rt = tip radius Ri = inner radius
Comment [TAL10]: turbine built from the kit Comment [TAL11]: but what you list, blades, generator, gear box is pretty much the entire turbine? Comment [TAL12]: gear ratio is not a component, the gearbox is.

15 β = blade pitch w = chord (width of blade) Angle of attack α is also important, but. Tthis variable is dependent on wind speed, angular velocity, radius, and blade pitch. An angle of attach of 10° provides a good balance of lift coefficient and drag coefficient. For our analysis, we make the following assumptions: Rt = 0.235 m U∞ = 4.2 m/s (incoming wind speed) Ω = 20.9 rad/s = 200 rpm (angular velocity) a = 0.2 (axial induction factor a’ = 0 (tangential induction factor)
Comment [TAL13]: why but?

Blade Element Velocities and Forces
Comment [TAL14]: Should provide a reference for this figure. Formatted: Keep with next

p. 59 Wind Turbine Handbook

From geometry in the above figure:

Substituting the values of the variables and taking r = 0.1125 m (half radius), we find Again, from geometry:

= 54.42.1°.

Substituting the ideal angle of attack α = 10°, we find β = 44.442.1°. Ideally, β would vary with along the radius of the blade to keep α constant. However, this is not practical with cardboard blades. Thus, our blades have a constant pitch of around 42.145°, which results in an angle of attack less than 10° at the tip, and greater than 10° at the inner radius.

Comment [TAL15]: 42.1 degrees is not approximate, 40 degrees is.

16 After blades, the next components to consider are the motor and gear ratio.

Motor Specifications

We chose this motor because it had the angular velocityrotational speed at maximum efficiency closest to what our prototype was outputtingproducing. This way, we can keep the gear ratio as low as possible. From the motor specifications shown above, the angular velocity needed for maximum motor efficiency is 2180 rpm. For a blade angular velocity of 200 rpm, this gives an ideal gear ratio of 2180/200 11. The smallest gear available has 10 teeth, while the largest has 50 teeth. Thus, the closest of the possible ratios to the ideal ratio of 11 is 5.

Comment [TAL16]: it is really the rotational speed that you are matching (RPM), not angular velocity.

Discussion For Teachers (Joseph Manginelli)
Everyone is familiar with the concept of energy in some shape or form. In its most raw understanding, energy is something that is needed to perform an action. Therefore, everything we do is somehow related to energy. When we make toast in the morning, we are using thermal energy. When we throw a ball, we are using mechanical energy. And even as you are reading this sentence, you are using some energy. But when it comes to providing energy to perform these actions, we may not know how that energy is created. We all know that toasters run on electricity, but the secret is how that electricity is created. While there are many ways to create it, for our sake we will only analyze the wind turbine. Use of Wwind turbines are is a growing trend in the world. They can be built on land and or anchored at sea, and use a virtually untapped source of energy: wind. A wind turbine takes wind energy and converts it into electrical potentialenergy. More specifically, wind is a form of kinetic energy, as are all moving masses. The wind hits a fan blade, causing kinetic energy to convert into a torquerotational energy. This torquerotational energy, which is manipulated through the use of gears, rotates a shaft in an electrical generator and electrical potential energy is created. The more wind there is, the greater the spin rotational energy of the shaft and the more energy that is produced. Therefore, the most important concept regarding wind turbines is how we make the fan blades move faster. There are several things to take into consideration here. The first is gear ratios. If the turbine was connected directly to the blades, it would rotate at the same speed as the blades. By utilizing gears, however, the turbines rotation can be changed to a desired level. Imagine a gear set up where a geared attached to the blade had 20 teeth and the turbine gear had ten. Simple math tells us that the turbine will spin twice as fast, and thus will produce twice as much electricity as its un-geared counterpart. We can manipulate gears to get a gear ratio (i.e., 2:1) which will provide an optimal turbine shaft speed.
Comment [TAL17]: This not really true. A lot of people have no idea what conservation of energy is. Comment [TAL18]: poorly constructed sentence Comment [TAL19]: electrical? Comment [TAL20]: what kind?? Comment [TAL21]: why this phrase?

Comment [TAL22]: more complicated than this - rotational speed is governed by load. Comment [TAL23]: But it is?? Comment [TAL24]: meaning what?

17 Another factor is the design of the blades, which can vary by pitch, size, and shape. In nature, winds are usually going to blow in a completely linear fashion perpendicular to the wind turbine. However, our small scale models are stimulated by box fans which produce a swirling wind at close range. Therefore when we consider the pitch of our blades, we must understand that the wind’s angle of attack is not necessarily perpendicular to the base and factor that into figuring out at which angle the blades will best “catch” the wind. The size and shape of our blades are also limited by our box fan. If we were in nature, our blades could be rather large and their entirety still be affected by the wind. However, the box fan will only create a wind stream about 2 feet wide. If we have blades with a wingspan of 5 ft., a good amount of that will just be dead weight and will retard the energy producing process. Large blades also allow for a more creative blade design. Most turbines you see today have blades which are air foils, which are designed to increase the lift produced by the wind and reduce the sound created. On a small scale, it is harder to make such shapes, and you must be creative when utilizing materials to try to best mimic this concept. One last thing to consider is the resistance to spin inherent in your design. Any time a bearing isn’t well oiled, a gear isn’t perfectly aligned or something is off balance, a frictional force is applied to your shaft reducing its speed and ultimately the energy created. Also, if the wind is strong enough, it can cause your base to “bend” backwards and thus your blades won’t be facing the wind in the direction you wanted it to. The easiest way to counteract this is make sure everything is engineered and manufactured perfectly and create a sturdy base. The gear box and base provided are an assembly which is very stable for classroom use. It is important to note, however, that when swapping out gears, one must make sure that the four corners of the top plate are all level with one another and parallel to the bottom plate. If this is not the case, the gears will be misaligned and the assembly will function poorly, if it functions at all. Also, make sure not to over tighten the hub or else it will crack. The hub is designed so that the two opposing faces do not have to be flesh with each other in order for the blades to be held in place.
Comment [TAL26]: this term is too nontechnical, use friction.

Comment [TAL25]: this is too complicated to explain easily to teachers. I would leave it out.

Comment [TAL27]: ?? this is impossible

Comment [TAL28]: This is more appropriate for an assembly manual than discussion of principles. Comment [TAL29]: This section is best placed later in the report. The sample report on ANGEL provides a possible model to follow.

Project Management Plan (Jonathan Matteson)
The Gantt chart for this project can be located in Appendix A. The Gantt chart is broken down by the deliverables required for this project. The main sections include progress memos, kit development, presentation, and written deliverables. Within the progress memos category there are completion periods for each of the six required memos. The progress memos sectionThis is included to ensure that the team won’t forget about these while working on other more time consuming portions of the project. The kit development stage is broken down into subcategories of concept generation, concept selection, building, and testing. It was decided to budget the concept generation and selection time for the first possible availability. The team decided this would provide the most amount of time to obtain parts, build and test the prototypes, and then make changes necessary without being rushed on time. By getting a head start on concept generation and selection, we gain a competitive advantage over many other groups who will wait longer to choose a design and will therefore have less time to test and refine their designs. The building portion of the Gantt chart has been broken down into many subcategories,

Formatted: Font: (Default) +Body (Calibri), Not Highlight

18 providing insight into the completion of each subsystem of the turbine. It has been broken down into the following subsystems: hub, blades, platforms, base, shaft, wiring, and gears. The next category is Presentation, which is broken down into the subcategories of preparation and presenting. It is important to include this into the project management plan because it is critical that a good sales pitch is developed, so that the customer can see the true value and uniqueness of this product. In order to complete the project there are several key tasks that must be completed. All materials must be purchased within the $100 budget. The base must be constructed by hand and fabricated to not allow for any structural flexibility ensure adequate structural stability when tested and handled by students. Fabrication will require some knowledge of power tools, which all team members already possess. The hub must be designed in Solidworks and fabricated using rapid prototyping. All members have knowledge of Solidworks for generating 3D parts. Team members have very limited knowledge of how to fabricate a part using rapid prototyping, for this the Llearning Factory staff will be consulted. For selection of turbine gearing, class notes and PowerPoint’s will be used, since no members have any previous experience choosing gears. Fabricating the gear box will require machining using large power tools, a drill press, and potentially a mill. All team members have experience using these machines and will work together in order to fabricate these parts as quickly as possible in order to get a functioning prototype. The remaining assembly of the wind turbine can be completed by hand using standard hardware; , so that the wind turbine is easy to put together for those with no technical background.

Comment [TAL30]: Still quite clear what this means. You are merging two points - construction by hand and the need for a rigid structure - that are not really related. Formatted: Font: (Default) +Body (Calibri), Not Highlight

Fabrication Process: (Jonathan Matteson)
The fabrication process can be split up into four major categories: turbine base, gear box platforms, hub and blades, as well as shaft and gearing. To start the base, 5’ of 1” OD PVC piping was taken and cut down into six sections of length 5” and 1 section of length 10”. The next thing that was done to complete the base was using a drill press to drill a #8 thru hole, near the top of the 10” length PVC, in order to mount two brackets to hold up the gear box platforms. Lastly, T-joints were used to connect the six 5” sections in the form of an “H” supporting the 10” vertical column placed in the middle of the base. The last thing that was done to complete the base was using a drill press to drill a #8 thru hole, near the top of the 10” length PVC, in order to mount two brackets to hold up the gear box platforms. After attaching the brackets with a #8 bolt and nut the next thing to do was two fabricate the two gear box plates. It was decided that the gear box plates were to be made out of metal in order to provide a rigid structure for mounting the generator and shaft on. Two identical 4”x4” metal plates were cut using the sheet metal cutter. These were made out of 1/8” aluminum sheet metal. Next a drill press was used in order to make a ¼” hole in each corner of the plates. These holes are used to house 3” bolts that the plates slide up and down on. T Next, the generator/bracket assembly was centered on the edge of the bottom plate. The locations of the two ¼” holes that hold the generator bracket were marked off and machined using the drill press. Next tThe locations of the #8 holes for the other side of the mounting bracket were marked off, and machined using the drill press. Now that theThe completed bottom plate was complete it was mounted to the base using #8 hardware. The generator/bracket assembly was mounted to the bottom plate using two ¼” bolts and wing nuts. A 3” bolt was inserted into each of the
Comment [TAL31]: Much too long to be a single paragraph.

Comment [TAL32]: You did this after assembling the base?

Comment [TAL33]: You did this after assembling the base? Formatted: Font: (Default) +Body (Calibri), Not Highlight

Formatted: Font: (Default) +Body (Calibri), Highlight Formatted: Font: (Default) +Body (Calibri), Highlight

19 corner holes and secured using ¼” wing nuts. It was aAt this point that we realized that the wing nuts wouldn’t sit flat on the base because it was running into the motor bracket. So a metal grinder was used to grind down a portion of the generator bracket to allow the wing nuts to be flush with the bottom plate. to tThe next task to be completed was the fabrication of the top plate. Four 1/8” holes needed to be drilled to mount the bearings, but accuracy needed to be ensured so that the shaft wasn’t misaligned, so these four holes were machined using the digital readout on the mill. It was determined that the bearings should be offset towards the front of the plate in order to better support the weight of the hub and blades, so these four holes were machined, and the two sets of holes were spaced 2” apart. Now that the top plate was completed it was slid onto the four 3” bolts and secured with ¼” wing nuts. The next process was making the shaft and gearing. First, using 1/8” hardware the two ball bearings were mounted onto the top plate. The ¼” shaft was then wrapped with tape in order for it to fit snuggly into the bearings. The brass shaft was inserted through the bearings and then the team moved on to gear fabrication. Since the gears have much smaller holes for the shaft, the gears provided were taken to a drill press to machine the shaft hole to ¼” for the large gears. The large gear was hand twisted onto the threaded end of the shaft. Next the pinion had to be drilled out in order to fit the bushing provided; this was done using the drill press. After pressing the bushing into the pinion, the bushing was pressed onto the generator and the distance between the two plates was adjhusted using the wing nuts in order to get the gears to mesh. Last was fabricating the hub and blades. After drawing up a two piece clamping design in Solidworks, the hub design was taken to the learning Learning factory Factory for rapid prototyping. Once that was finished it was attached to the other threaded end of the shaft using ¼” washers and wing nuts. The old blades made from cardboard and duct tapes were originally used, but after extensive blade testing, smaller, rounder blades were constructed from cardboard, glue, and dowel rods. The blade radius was made smaller in order to be in the middle of the airflow.The old blades made from cardboard and duct tape were used. These new blades were inserted into various slots in the hub and angled appropriately to allow the turbine to spin. After testing a few times, it was noticed that there was considerable rocking because of an uneven base. To fix this, rubber patches were put on the bottom of the base, in order to act as feet and stabilize the design. This is what has been done up to this point, but the design is changing constantly to improve efficiency and functionality. The final change made to the design was the addition of banana plug jacks. Two holes were drilled into the bottom plate and then the two banana plug jacks were fastened in. Then wire leads were soldered between the generator and the banana plug jacks. This completed all the changes that were made to the wind turbine.

Formatted: Font: (Default) +Body (Calibri), Not Highlight

Formatted: Font: (Default) +Body (Calibri), Highlight

Testing Results and Design Revisions (Jeff Irwin)
Our alpha prototype was predominantly based on design concept #1, with a base structure similar to design structure #2, and a hub connected to a shaft as shown in design concept #4. The motorThe

20 voltage drop drop generated a voltage across a 10.06 Ω resistor, which was measured with a digital multimeter. With a blade pitch of around 10°, a voltage of 1.5 V was achieved. After adjusting the blade pitch to around 40°, a voltage of 2.6 V was achieved. With our initial blade design, a voltage of .48 V was achieved. After changing the blade shape, a voltage of .70 V was achieved. After increasing the number of blades from three to six, a voltage of .75 was achieved. After shortening the radius of the blades by two inches, a final voltage of .96 V was achieved. We can calculate power generated P as: = The power coefficient can be calculated as:

ρ = density of air = 1.2 kg/m3 = incoming wind speed = 3.04.2 m/s A = area swept out by blades = Substituting the values of the variables, we find Cp 0.0343731.

There were several problems with the alpha prototype, which prompted design revisions. First, the shaft was slightly undersized compared to the bearings. By wrapping a piece of paper around the shaft, it was made to fita tighter fit was achieved securely in the bearings. Also, the platform's wobble on the PVC base structure. This problem was easily resolved by tightening the nut attaching the PVC pipe to the L-brackets. Also, the entire structure wobbles, as it sits on the tees rather than the extending PVC pipes. By adding rubber foam cushions to the undersides of the PVC pipes, this unwanted motion was eliminated. Finally, we do not have a standard interface for test instrumentation. By drilling two holes in the lower platform and soldering wires to the motor leads, we can createcreated an input for banana plugs.

Comment [TAL34]: Jon mentioned this

Budget and Materials (Jeff Irwin)
Table 2. Materials Costs for Prototype

Item Gears Motors Rapid Prototyped Hub PVC Piping Bearings Shaft Motor Clamp Steel Brackets

Notes $1.25 per gear $3.00 motor $8 per cubic inch 5’ of 1” pipe, and 3 joining T’s 2 at 15.14 each Brass Rod Steel bracket 2 at 0.35 each

Cost 2.50 3.00 12.00 4.40 30.28 1.84 2.59 0.70

21

¼” Spade Head Screws ¼” Wing Nuts #8 Hex Nuts 1/8” Hex Nuts ¼” Washers ¼” Screws #8 Screws 1/8” Screws 4”x4” Aluminum Sheet Metal Cardboard Rubber Foam Cushions Total Cost

4 at 0.58 each 16, free from Instrument Room 3, free from Instrument Room 4, free from Instrument Room 2, free from Instrument Room 2, free from Instrument Room 3, free from Instrument Room 4, free from Instrument Room 2, free from Learning Factory From cereal box 4, free from Instrument Room

2.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 59.60

Table 3. Estimated Cost for Kit Assume 5000 units produced and a labor cost of $10/hr. Further assume that the unit cost of materials and components such as gears and motors will be reduced by 1/6 compared to the cost in Table 1. For components that must be manufactured, e.g., your hub or motor mount, please specify the manufacturing process that you assumed and the basis for your cost estimate.

Item Gears Motor Hub PVC Piping Bearings Shaft Motor Clamp Steel Brackets ¼” Spade Head Screws ¼” Wing Nuts #8 Hex Nuts 1/8” Hex Nuts ¼” Washers ¼” Screws #8 Screws 1/8” Screws 4”x4” Aluminum Sheet Metal Cardboard Rubber Foam Cushions Total Materials Costs

Notes

Rapid Prototyped Component

Cost/Price ($) 0.42 0.50 2.00 0.73 5.05 0.31 0.43 0.12 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.94

22

Hours required to produced Kit Cost to produce one kit Price of Kit

$10/hr

1.5

Materials plus Labor Price set to achieve a 20% internal rate of return

24.94 38.18

For the prototype, many pieces of hardware such as screws, nuts, and washers were acquired for free from the Instrument Room in Reber Building and the Learning Factory. Assuming 5000 units produced, the cost of these standard materials would be negligible compared to the cost of other components such as the bearings and the hub.

Formatted: Heading 1

Team Reflection: (Jonathan Matteson)
We felt that this project gave team members a great opportunity to experience what design is like in the real world. This project was the first opportunity many people in the class have had to do any hands on work with designing, choosing materials, and fabrication of a mechanical device. We believe that this class gave us invaluable experience when it came to choosing materials/parts. It taught us different things to look for when selecting parts, as well as expanded our horizons to the vast choices that are available in the world of hardware. We know this is something that often times we had to learn on our own during internships, but this class gave some class members the experience they need for when they are asked to do this in the work place. Fabrication wise, this class provided an opportunity to work with a variety of different power tools, saws, mills, lathes, drill press, rapid prototype machine, and soldering. These are all skills that we will carry with us into our profession careers and will help us be more productive engineers. One very important professional skill everyone in the group learned was how to meet deadlines. Throughout the project there were many deadlines established more certain project components. Doing this helped the team manage their time effectively in order to meet the due dates. This translates very well to what we will do in a professional work place in meeting the deadlines given to us by our bosses. The other very valuable professional skill we all learned was how to assemble a professional technical report. Before this project we didn’t have much practice assembling technical reports, but this project provided a very elegant way of teaching us how to do this step by step.

23

Appendix A: Gantt Charts
Original Gantt Chart

24

Gantt Chart as of 4/15/2012

25

Appendix B: Bill of Materials
Vendor Lowes Part #
PVC 04010 0600 401010RMC

Quantity

Description 1 5'x1" PVC Schedule 40 Piping 3 1" PVC Schedule 40 Tee 1 Brass Float Rod, 1/4"20 threads, 8" long 2 Stainless steel ball bearings, for 1/4" shaft 1 Clamp for 1 1/4" OD 1 10-pk Spade Head thumb screws, 1/4"20, 3" long 2 7/8" x 5/8" corner steel bracket 1 Brushed DC Motor 4 Rubber padding wiring 2 banana plug receptors 1 gear set

Unit Price $2.48

Price $2.48

Lowes

$0.64

$1.92

McMaster

4551K31

$1.84

$1.84

McMaster

8600N3

$15.14

$30.28

McMaster McMaster

11355T29 90181A556

$2.59 $5.72

$2.5 9 $5.72

McMaster

1556A24

$0.35

$0.70

Jameco Stock Stock Stock Stock Stock

RF-500TB12560

$3.95

$3.95

16 Wing nuts

Total Cost

$49.48

26

Appendix C: Design Specifications
No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Metric Unit Production Cost Disassembled size Assembly time Efficiency Blade radius Gear ratio Units US $ Inches Minutes % cm none Value 49.48 <11.5x5x6 2-3 >7.33.5 235 50:12

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful