Irrigation System
-
Upload
raymond-anderson -
Category
Documents
-
view
15 -
download
0
description
Transcript of Irrigation System
IRRIGATION SYSTEM
ME 414: Team 4Chris Cook
Matt Griffey
Jason Colgan
Breanne Walters
Jeremy Johnson
SPECIFICATIONS-Provide a efficient watering system
-One inch coverage
-Layout area as shown
-Electric Utility Cost
-Water Waste
HUNTER PGJ ROTOR SPRINKLER
-Very Versatile Head
-Pressure Range with Large Radii Range
-Under $10 per Head
-Adjustable Radii
-Adjustable Heads for Required Pressures
-Good Range for Precipitation Rates
SPRINKLER HEAD LAYOUT
AFT VERIFICATION BY ZONES
Each Zone was modeled in AFT 4 Zones
Common radii or general area
General Components set with 52.5 K value
End Components Modeled with Sprinkler Hunter Professionals Gave Exit Flow Area
Assumed 60psi
PVC-Gauge 40 Pipe with Default Resistance
EXAMPLE ZONE 1
COMBINED AFT RESULTS
AFT was run for all 4 Zones Overall Pressure Drops Concerned about pressure at each Head
All pressures were in check for each Head
Pressure Drops For Each
Zone
ZoneStarting pressure
(psi) Ending Pressure (psi)Pressure Drop
(psi)1 60 35.34 24.662 60 35.22 24.783 60 34.26 25.744 60 35.29 24.71
OVERALL SYSTEM RESULTS
QUESTIONS
ME 414: PROJECT 2: TUBE AND SHELL HEAT EXCHANGER DESIGN
Jason Colgan, Chris Cook, Matt Griffey, Jeremy Johnson, Breanne Walters
DESIGN PARAMETERS
Remove 1.2 Megawatts of power Process Water
Inlet 90ºC Outlet 40ºC
City water Inlet during summer 25ºC
Optimal Length 4-6 meters
ORIGINAL DESIGN PARAMETERS
Tube Side Heat Transfer ParametersNumber of Tubes, N 212
Number of Passes 1
Tubes OD 0.0254 mTubes ID 0.0186 m
Tube Length, L 5.15 m
Tube Pitch, PT 0.0318 m
Heat Transfer Coefficient, h 1088.79 W/m2*C
Shell Side Heat Transfer ParametersShell ID 0.5398 m
Shell Cross Sectional Area 0.2289 m2
Shell Flow Area 0.1214 m2
Shell Equivalent Diameter 0.0251 m
Mass Velocity, G 123.53 kg/m2*s
Heat Transfer Coefficient, h 1565.28 W/m2*C
Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient
U (Tube outside Area) 501.29 W/m2*CHeat Transfer Rate
Desired Heat Transfer Rate 1201725.86 WCalculated Heat Transfer Rate 1205437.99 W
Difference -3712.13Desired - To - Calculated Ratio 1
HE Pressure DropShell Side ∆P 57.58 PaTube Side ∆P 77.21 PaHeat Exchanger WeightTotal Weight 1653.42 kg
VARIABLE REDUCTION
Important Variables
Tube Thickness
Shell Thickness
Shell Material
Mdot Tube Mdot Tube
Shell I/D Shell I/D
Tube Length Tube Length
Counter / Parallel
Tube O/D
Tube Material
•From previous iterations these nine were the variables that had the greatest effect on Weight, Length, Q, and ∆P’s
MAIN EFFECT PLOTS
PARETO CHARTS FOR OPTIMIZATION
•Shell side pressure drop- Shell I/D had the greatest effect
•Heat Exchanger overall weight- Shell I/D and Tube Length
•Tube pressure drop- Mass flow rate through the tubes, Shell I/D and Tube Length
OPTIMIZATION RESULTS
Tube Side Heat Transfer ParametersNumber of Tubes, N 267Number of Passes 1
Tubes OD 0.0254mTubes ID 0.0186m
Tube Length, L 4.12mTube Pitch, PT 0.0318
Heat Transfer Coefficient, h 1049.9
Shell Side Heat Transfer ParametersShell ID 0.6063
Shell Cross Sectional Area 0.2887Shell Flow Area 0.1534
Shell Equivalent Diameter 0.0251Mass Velocity, G 97.77
Heat Transfer Coefficient, h 1387.23
Overall Heat Transfer CoefficientU (Tube outside Area) 471.96W/m 2*C
Heat Transfer RateDesired Heat Transfer Rate 1442071.03 W
Calculated Heat Transfer Rate 1083921.73 WDifference 358149.3 W
Desired - To - Calculated Ratio 1.33
HE Pressure DropShell Side ∆P 42.2 PaTube Side ∆P 60.40 Pa
Heat Exchanger WeightTotal Weight 1662.27 kg
ADJUSTED OPTIMIZED RESULTS
Tube Side Heat Transfer ParametersNumber of Tubes, N 293
Number of Passes 1Tubes OD 0.0254 mTubes ID 0.0186 m
Tube Length, L 4.4 m
Tube Pitch, PT 0.0318 mHeat Transfer Coefficient, h 854.85 W/m2*C
Shell Side Heat Transfer ParametersShell ID 0.6350 m
Shell Cross Sectional Area 0.3167 m2
Shell Flow Area 0.1682 m2
Shell Equivalent Diameter 0.0251 m
Mass Velocity, G 89.17 kg/m2*s
Heat Transfer Coefficient, h 1308.37 W/m2*C
Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient
U (Tube outside Area) 446. W/m2*CHeat Transfer Rate
Desired Heat Transfer Rate 1201725.86 WCalculated Heat Transfer Rate 1152519.81 W
Difference -49206.06Desired - To - Calculated Ratio 1.04
HE Pressure DropShell Side ∆P 37.55 PaTube Side ∆P 38.92 PaHeat Exchanger WeightTotal Weight 1945.79 kg
COMPARISON OF RESULTS The optimized design- lower pressure drop and a shorter
length than the original but heat transfer rate was too low The adjusted optimized design- lowest pressure drop,
medium length, and heat transfer rate off by 4% but highest mass
Initial design- closest heat transfer rate, lowest mass, highest pressure drop, but longest length
Initial Design Optimized Design Adjusted Optimized DesignOverall Heat Transfer Coefficient
U (Tube outside Area) 501.29 W/m2*C 471.96W/m 2*C 446. W/m2*CHeat Transfer Rate
Desired Heat Transfer Rate 1201725.86 W 1442071.03 W 1201725.86 WCalculated Heat Transfer Rate 1205437.99 W 1083921.73 W 1152519.81 W
Difference -3712.13 358149.3 W -49206.06Desired - To - Calculated Ratio 1 1.33 1.04
HE Pressure DropShell Side ∆P 57.58 Pa 42.2 Pa 37.55 PaTube Side ∆P 77.21 Pa 60.40 Pa 38.92 Pa
Heat Exchanger WeightTotal Weight 1653.42 kg 1662.27 kg 1945.79 kg
LengthTube Length, L 5.15 m 4.12m 4.4 m
CONCLUSIONS
Depending on the most stringent requirements two of these designs are valid
Initial Design Closer Heat transfer rate- 1.205 MW Longer Length- 5.15 m Higher Pressure Drops-∆Pt= 77.21 Pa ,∆Ps= 57.58Pa Lower Mass- 1653.42 kg
Adjusted Optimized Design Close Heat Transfer Rate- 1.15 MW Shorter Length- 4.4m Lower Pressure Drop- ∆Pt= 38.92 Pa ,∆Ps= 37.55 Pa Higher Mass- 1945.79 kg
QUESTIONS
?