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

?