Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Wind Turbine Design Report FINAL

567 views

Published on

  • 22lbs GONE in 13 days with this strange "carb-pairing" trick... ◆◆◆ https://tinyurl.com/poundinc11
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • Enough is a enough! Is this going to be the day you finally do something about your health? It is a lot easier than you think to be able to shed off unwanted weight. See how you can get started today with 1 minute weight loss routines! ◆◆◆ https://tinyurl.com/1minweight4u
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here

Wind Turbine Design Report FINAL

  1. 1. P a g e | I Wind Turbine Design Report Members: Matthew Boles Caleb Henry Eric Romanowski
  2. 2. P a g e | II Table of Contents Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 1 Abstract ....................................................................................................................................... 1 Customer Needs .......................................................................................................................... 2 Design Summary............................................................................................................................. 3 Prototype One ................................................................................................................................. 4 Concept Generation and Selection .............................................................................................. 4 Base Design ............................................................................................................................. 4 Table 1: Base Design Decision Matrix .................................................................................... 5 Blade Design............................................................................................................................ 7 Table 2: Blade Design Decision Matrix for Prototype One .................................................... 7 Selected Design for Prototype One ........................................................................................... 10 Final Assembly.......................................................................................................................... 11 Figure 1: Full assembled CAD Drawing - Prototype One..................................................... 11 Square Base:.............................................................................................................................. 12 Figure 2: Square Base Drawing............................................................................................. 12 Main Shaft................................................................................................................................. 13 Figure 3: Shaft Drawing ........................................................................................................ 13 Motor Holder............................................................................................................................. 14 Figure 4: Motor Holder Drawing........................................................................................... 14 Motor......................................................................................................................................... 15 Figure 5: Motor Drawing....................................................................................................... 15 Tri-Force Blade ......................................................................................................................... 16 Figure 6: Tri-Force Blade Drawing ....................................................................................... 16 Prototype Two............................................................................................................................... 17
  3. 3. P a g e | III Concept Generation and Selection ............................................................................................ 17 Blade Design.......................................................................................................................... 17 Table 3: Blade Design Decision Matrix for Prototype Two .................................................. 18 Selected Design for Prototype Two .......................................................................................... 19 Final Assembly.......................................................................................................................... 20 Figure 7: Full assembled CAD Drawing – Prototype Two ................................................... 20 Square Base............................................................................................................................... 21 Figure 8: Square Base Drawing............................................................................................. 21 Main Shaft................................................................................................................................. 22 Figure 9: Main Shaft Drawing............................................................................................... 22 Motor Holder............................................................................................................................. 23 Figure 10: Motor Holder Drawing......................................................................................... 23 Motor Attachment ..................................................................................................................... 24 Figure 11: Motor Attachment Drawing ................................................................................. 24 Adapted Water Wheel Blade..................................................................................................... 25 Figure 12: Adapted Water Wheel Blade Drawing................................................................. 25 Prototype Three............................................................................................................................. 26 Concept Generation and Selection ............................................................................................ 26 Base Design ........................................................................................................................... 26 Table 4: Base Design Decision Matrix for Prototype Three ................................................. 27 Blade Design.......................................................................................................................... 28 Table 5: Blade Design Decision Matrix for Prototype Three ................................................ 28 Selected Design for Prototype Three ........................................................................................ 30 Final Assembly.......................................................................................................................... 31 Figure 13: Full assembled CAD Drawing - Prototype Three ................................................ 31
  4. 4. P a g e | IV Square Base............................................................................................................................... 32 Figure 14: Square Base Drawing........................................................................................... 32 Base Supports............................................................................................................................ 33 Figure 15: Base Support #1 Drawing .................................................................................... 33 Figure 16: Base Support #2 Drawing .................................................................................... 33 Support Tail............................................................................................................................... 34 Figure 17: Support Tail Drawing........................................................................................... 34 Main Shaft................................................................................................................................. 35 Figure 18: Main Shaft Drawing............................................................................................. 35 Torque Support.......................................................................................................................... 36 Figure 19: Torque Support Drawing...................................................................................... 36 Motor Mount ............................................................................................................................. 37 Figure 14: Motor Mount Drawing......................................................................................... 37 Swept Tri-blade......................................................................................................................... 38 Figure 20: Swept Tri-Blade Drawing .................................................................................... 38 Test Performance for Prototype One......................................................................................... 39 Test Performance for Prototype Two ........................................................................................ 40 Test Performance for Prototype Three ...................................................................................... 41 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 42 Budgets.......................................................................................................................................... 43 Budget for Prototype One ......................................................................................................... 43 Table 6: Budget for Prototype One........................................................................................ 43 Budget for Prototype Two......................................................................................................... 43 Table 7: Budget for Prototype Two ....................................................................................... 43 Budget for Prototype Three....................................................................................................... 44
  5. 5. P a g e | V Table 8: Budget for Prototype Three ..................................................................................... 44 Mass of Turbine ............................................................................................................................ 45 Mass of Turbine Prototype One ................................................................................................ 45 Table 9: Mass of Turbine One ............................................................................................... 45 Mass of Turbine Prototype Two................................................................................................ 45 Table 10: Mass of Turbine Two ............................................................................................ 45 Mass of Turbine Prototype Three.............................................................................................. 46 Table 11: Mass of Turbine Three .......................................................................................... 46 Appendices.................................................................................................................................... 47 Appendix A: Generator Specifications ..................................................................................... 47 Appendix B: Measured Wind Speeds ....................................................................................... 48 Works Cited .................................................................................................................................. 49
  6. 6. P a g e | 1 Introduction This section will introduce the Wind Turbine Project. This includes the abstract and the customer needs which forms the basis of the project. Abstract The problem that must be addressed is the design and construction of a wind turbine that is light, inexpensive, and effective at producing power. The first prototype has been based on similar designs used within the industry using a singular tower and the generator mounted at the top of the structure with the propeller. The goal of the first prototype was to mimic the effectiveness and strength of the most commonly produced wind turbine. The cost of the first prototype would cost approximately $8.54. The total mass of the wind turbine was approximately 284.6 grams. The base of the wind turbine was very effective. This means that it did not falter throughout the duration of the three minute test. The blades, however, only created a maximum of .0014 watts, which is very inefficient. The first prototype would not be recommended due to a lack of power produced and a large cost compared to the poor power output. The second prototype was based on a paddle boat paddle system which was thought to be very productive at utilizing air to turn the generator. While the second prototype succeeded at reducing the cost, it added both weight and reduced the number of watts produced. The total cost of the turbine was $3.93 which is much better than the first prototype. The total mass of the second turbine was approximately 361.0 grams. It produced a lower amount of watts producing only .00051 watts which is much less than the first prototype. The second prototype would not be recommended due to a large mass and very low power output. The third prototype used a swept tri-blade design that was based on the first prototype but with a way to catch and utilize more wind to its advantage. The third prototype improved every aspect of the turbine and thus the group recommends this prototype be used. The turbine mass totaled only 254.4 grams which is lighter than the previous turbines while not compromising stability. The cost was also much less than the previous turbines, totaling only $3.18 which is one-third of the second prototypes cost. It also improved upon the power output, outputting .615
  7. 7. P a g e | 2 watts, which is approximately a 500% increase from the first prototype. It is for the decrease in cost, weight, and an increase in power output that the group recommends the third prototype. Customer Needs The customer requires a wind turbine that is freestanding, functions without issue for three minutes, and generates power. The customer is also interested in three other aspects that should be incorporated into the design of the turbine. The turbine should be lightweight which will help the customer transport and set up the wind turbine. It should also have a low cost which will allow the customer to purchase more wind turbines or increase profitability of the purchased turbines. Last but not least, the turbine should have a high efficiency which will allow for fewer turbines to be required, thus saving the customer money. Part of the turbine should also be built using either a 3D printer, the Torchmate, or the laser cutter.
  8. 8. P a g e | 3 Design Summary The purpose of the design summary is to address the design of the prototypes and explain the decisions pertaining to the aspects of the turbine. The design summary contains all possible solutions that were considered and the reasoning that the designs were chosen and the potential effectiveness to the overall design. It includes both the entire base design as well as various blade designs that were considered to be potential contenders to be included in the first design prototype.
  9. 9. P a g e | 4 Prototype One This section will discuss all aspects pertaining to prototype one. Concept Generation and Selection The purpose of the concept generation and selection is to eliminate potentially poor design ideas before they are attempted as prototypes. Thus, this section will focus on various ideas, many of which are not incorporated in the prototype. Base Design The group has decided to make a decision matrix considering the following elements: constrains blade possibilities, cost, simple assembly, stability, and weight. The base should allow for multiple different types of fan blades, but if the base lowers the choices of blades, then it loses value. Cost is also highly rated because the higher the cost for the producer; the higher the cost for the consumer. A simple assembly, simple meaning quick and does not require much effort to build, will allow for us to develop more prototypes in less time if the idea does fail. Stability is the most valuable element to our decision matrix. The project will fail immediately if the project topples and falls. This structure and its strength begins at the base. Weight is another important factor in the group’s decision matrix. The less the structure weights; the easier it will be to transport the turbine.
  10. 10. P a g e | 5 Table 1: Base Design Decision Matrix Decision Matrix Idea 1 – Long quad base Idea 2 – Pyramid base Idea 3 – Wire Idea 4 – Big Circle, Little Square Constrains Blade Possibilities/Motor Mount - 15 2 3 4 4 Cost – 20 4 3 3 4 Simple Assembly – 15 4 2 3 4 Stability – 25 2 4 4 3 Weight – 20 4 3 4 4 Total Points 300 295 355 355 Idea one scored 300 points overall. The aesthetics of the base are standard to a wind turbine and thus scored in the middle of the rubric. In terms of motor mounting capabilities, it scored below average due to a limited amount of mounting options. This is in contrast to the cost, which is relatively low, allowing it to score high. It also scored high in simplicity due to the cross base design and the few pieces required. It did, however, score low for stability because of the lack of area covered and few supports preventing wobbling, though the weight scored a four because of the few pieces needed. Idea two scored 295 points overall. It had acceptable mounting abilities for the motor. Due to the extra material needed for the pyramid, it has an average cost compared to the others. Due to the more complicated design of the base, it scores a 2 on the ease of assembly. It is because of the extra material, however, that it scores well with stability due to it taking less space to be stable, which also is a downside for the weight, which is at an average projection. Idea three scored the highest with 355 points overall. It has an above average amount of motor mounting options. It also features average cost and assembly specifications due to the
  11. 11. P a g e | 6 amount of parts involved in the structure. The wire design does feature exceptional stability and a low weight from the hollow base and rectangle design. Idea four scored the highest as well with an overall score of 355. The number of motor mounting positions placed it around average adaptability. Because of the large amount of material used, it had an average low cost though it features a simple assembly, being a base with a pole, allowing it to score high in that regard. Both the stability and weight were scored as above average because of the size of the base, though those features contribute to the positive attributes of the design (Contech Engineered Solutions n.d.).
  12. 12. P a g e | 7 Blade Design To determine the best blade, a decision matrix has been created considering the following elements: adaptability, cost, simple assembly, projected efficiency, and weight. The adaptability of a blade is important because it can allow for various arrangements as well as allowing the base to change around it. The cost is also important to consider because it can be a determinant of whether the customer will choose to purchase the wind turbine. A simple assembly can allow maintenance to be done fast as well as allow a company to build more turbines in less time. The efficiency of the system, and thus the blades, are easily the most important aspect of a turbine because it allows the motor to generate the most power. The weight is also important for all aspects of the machine because it affects the ability to transport the turbine as well as adds extra unneeded force to the base. Table 2: Blade Design Decision Matrix for Prototype One Decision Matrix Idea 1 – Tri Blade Idea 2 – River Wheel Idea 3 – Flat shovel blades Idea 4 – Curved Shovel Adaptability - 15 3 1 3 3 Projected Cost - 20 4 1 2 3 Simple Assembly – 15 4 4 3 3 Efficiency - 25 4 3 2 3 Weight – 20 4 1 2 3 Total Points 365 190 220 285 The adaptability of the blades is important because of the implications it can have on the base and the efficiency of the turbine. Idea one, three, and four scored in the middle of the possible points for adaptability because while they can be slightly adjusted after being built and
  13. 13. P a g e | 8 tweaked without much effort, the designs do not have the ability to conform immediately to the group’s desire. Idea two scored the lowest out of the four designs due to it needing a specific base and can only have an orientation in relation to the base. Cost of a machine is also important to consider while building a wind turbine and the cost of the propeller can be a significant cost that will eventually be passed down to a consumer. Assuming all ideas were to be produced of the same material, the least costly idea would be idea one because of the lack of material that would be used in the production. The next least costly idea would be number four because the propeller's fin density would not be as high as the remaining two options. Ideas two and three come in a close last and second to last place due to the extra material that is used with each design, thus exponentially increasing the cost of both propellers. A simple assembly of the propeller to the base is very important to the overall design of turbine because it allows for changes to be made quickly and without money being lost to time. Both idea one and two’s propellers are relatively easy to assemble due to a simpler design which is horizontal in nature. Ideas 3 and 4 are somewhat more complicated due to a vertical mounting system which can complicate the overall base design. The projected efficiency is possibly the most important aspect of the design because it determines the power output by the motor. The tri-blade design is regarded as one of the most efficient designs within the wind turbine industry and thus scored the highest out of the four ideas (Gurit n.d.). Idea three and four closely follow with idea two being based off of an old steam boat propeller, it would not face as much opposing wind thus increasing its efficiency over the remaining two designs. Idea four would also be efficient due to the curve of the blade, allowing the opposing air flow to pass over it with more ease than a non-curved blade. Idea three scores very low due to the straight edge of the blade which causes more air disruption and also catches more opposing air, reducing the effectiveness of the design. The weight of the propeller is a determinant factor to the design of a propeller because of the implications it has, not only structurally, but also when the turbine has to be transported. Idea one scored the highest in the weight category due to the lack of material that is used. Idea four is similar to idea one but uses slightly more material in comparison, as does idea three in comparison to idea four. Idea two, however, would be the heaviest because of the extravagant design that uses much more material than the others.
  14. 14. P a g e | 9 The first prototype tested used the Tri Blade design due to it having a projected high effectiveness for producing power.
  15. 15. P a g e | 10 Selected Design for Prototype One The purpose of the Selected Design Concept Discussion is to describe the proposed plan to develop our first prototype. This section will discuss the square base, the shaft, the motor holder, the motor, and the Tri-Force Blade design.
  16. 16. P a g e | 11 Final Assembly Figure 1: Full assembled CAD Drawing - Prototype One
  17. 17. P a g e | 12 Square Base: Figure 2: Square Base Drawing The square base is a simple portion of the design. The shape will allow for equal balancing in all directions. In the case that the motor needs to be rotated to catch a wind, the square base will pose no threat to a change in direction. The square will be created out of half inch cardboard. We expect that the price of a full 30” X 40”cardboard sheet is $1.69 from Utrecht Art Supplies (Utrecht n.d.). Though the design is simple, the large size of the lofty material will allow it to prevent tipping in the winds.
  18. 18. P a g e | 13 Main Shaft Figure 3: Shaft Drawing The shaft is a hollow cylinder that is designed to fit directly into the center of the square base. This piece will be made of 3/4 thick PVC. The piece is 431.8mm to catch the strongest winds that was recorded in the wind speed table. This part weighs enough to hold the cardboard square down, but not enough to destabilize the generally low weight turbine. The PVC pipe has been purchased through PVC Fittings Online for $3.91 (PVC Fittings Online n.d.). The cylindrical shape of the PVC shaft will allow for winds to bend around the structure unlike a rectangular face. This will benefit overall stability in the base and will not hamper the wind speeds on the turbine blades.
  19. 19. P a g e | 14 Motor Holder Figure 4: Motor Holder Drawing The motor holder was designed for the purpose of transitioning a PVC pipe into a comfortable setting for the motor. The motor holder fits directly into the PVC pipe hole and snuggly fits the motor directly into the slot. The motor holder will be created out of ABS plastic using a 3-D printer, which will fufill our machine use requirement. ABS plastic costs approximately $30 per kilogram. The final product weighs 37.7g which would cost approximately $1.13.
  20. 20. P a g e | 15 Motor Figure 5: Motor Drawing The motor was measured so that it will have a perfect fit into the motor holder. The Tri- Force blade used an interference fit to slide onto the motor’s axle. The figure shows a modeled version of the motor that was provided for testing. Though the technical drawings look bare, two wires stick out the rear end of the motor, so that they can be connected to a voltometer or another power measuring utensil. This will remain the design for all remaining prototypes.
  21. 21. P a g e | 16 Tri-Force Blade Figure 6: Tri-Force Blade Drawing The Tri-Force blade is very similar to designs commonly used in industry. The propeller has been 3D printed out of ABS plastic to ensure a light weight and low cost. It has been designed to have a curvature that can slice thorugh the air as well as catch the wind to produce power. The Tri-Force Blade follows the same pricing for the motor holder at approximately $30 per kilogram. The blade’s mass is 13.9 grams so the total cost for the Tri-Force blade is $0.42. These blades are low cost and low weight; they also are expected to have a generally high power output due to the frequent usage of these blades.
  22. 22. P a g e | 17 Prototype Two This section will discuss all aspects pertaining to prototype two. Concept Generation and Selection The purpose of the concept generation and selection is to eliminate potentially poor design ideas before they are attempted as prototypes. Thus, this section will focus on various ideas, many of which are not incorporated in the prototype. The group felt that the base did not need modified or redesigned from prototype one and will remain the same for the second prototype. Blade Design To determine the best blade, a decision matrix has been created considering the following elements: adaptability, cost, simple assembly, projected efficiency, and weight. The adaptability of a blade is important because it can allow for various arrangements as well as allowing the base to change around it. The cost is also important to consider because it can be a determinant of whether the customer will choose to purchase the wind turbine. A simple assembly can allow maintenance to be done fast as well as allow a company to build more turbines in less time. The efficiency of the system, and thus the blades, are easily the most important aspect of a turbine because it allows the motor to generate the most power. The weight is also important for all aspects of the machine because it affects the ability to transport the turbine as well as adds extra unneeded force to the base.
  23. 23. P a g e | 18 Table 3: Blade Design Decision Matrix for Prototype Two Decision Matrix Idea 1 – Adapted River Wheel Idea 2 – River Wheel Idea 3 – Flat shovel blades Idea 4 – Curved Shovel Adaptability - 15 3 1 3 3 Projected Cost - 20 3 1 2 3 Simple Assembly – 15 3 4 3 3 Efficiency - 25 4 3 2 3 Weight – 20 3 1 2 3 Total Points 310 190 220 285 Three of the original blade ideas remained from prototype one and a new one was subsequently created and chosen. The adapted river wheel was scored higher than the original river wheel design due to the potential for more mounting positions, a lower cost due to using a material already in the design, as well as a higher efficiency than what was projected compared to the original river wheel design. This provided average and above average scores for the blade design allowing it to score a reasonable 310 points. The adapted river wheel was designed with the intention of mimicking the design of the original river wheel while adding additional blades and a minimal blade mounting system. This lead the group to believe that not only will the weight be reduced, but also, cost be reduced, and efficiency increased. This significantly increased the projected points for that blade design.
  24. 24. P a g e | 19 Selected Design for Prototype Two The purpose of this Selected Design Concept Discussion is to describe the proposed plan to develop the group's second prototype. This section will discuss the square base, the shaft, the motor holder, the motor, and the adapted water wheel blade design.
  25. 25. P a g e | 20 Final Assembly Figure 7: Full assembled CAD Drawing – Prototype Two
  26. 26. P a g e | 21 Square Base Figure 8: Square Base Drawing The square base is a simple portion of the design. The shape will allow for equal balancing in all directions. In the case that the motor needs to be rotated to catch a wind, the square base will pose no threat to a change in direction. The square will be created out of half inch cardboard. We expect that the price of a full 30” X 40”cardboard sheet is $1.69 from Utrecht Art Supplies (Utrecht n.d.). Though the design is simple, the large size of the lofty material will allow it to prevent tipping in the winds. Hot glue is also needed for the construction of the base which can be found at Walmart for $1.04. ALL DIMENSIONSARE IN MM.
  27. 27. P a g e | 22 Main Shaft Figure 9: Main Shaft Drawing The shaft in prototype two is very similar to the shaft in prototype one. The main difference is that its height is 15”. The group used the same 3/4” schedule 40 PVC pipe, because of its acceptable cost and weight. The length of the PVC was changed to support the new blade design and allow it to operate in the acceptable air flow region. The lowered height allowed for the highest speed winds to only hit the top blade. Hot glue was used to fix the shaft into place. The shaft’s mass is 119 grams. The PVC cost $1.29 for a 5’ 1” schedule 40 PVC pipe at Menards.
  28. 28. P a g e | 23 Motor Holder Figure 10: Motor Holder Drawing The motor mount in prototype two is also similar to the motor mount in prototype one. This motor mount design was cut in size. This will help reduce both the cost and the weight of the turbine as a whole. The motor mount is designed to fit snugly inside the PVC shaft opening. The top of the mount allowed for the motor to slide into place and stay fixed with hot glue. The motor mount was created out of ABS plastic and has a mass of nine grams. Using $30.00 per kilogram, the motor mount cost $0.27.
  29. 29. P a g e | 24 Motor Attachment Figure 11: Motor Attachment Drawing The motor attachment is a crucial component to the blade design. The motor shaft slides directly onto either side of the hole in the center of the cylinder. The motor shaft attachment gives the ability to transfer a very small shaft into a much larger, more applicable shaft. The shaft attachment is made out of ABS plastic and has a total mass of 21 grams. The shaft costs $0.63 according to the pricing of $30.00 per kilogram of ABS. ALL DIMENSIONSIN MM.
  30. 30. P a g e | 25 Adapted Water Wheel Blade Figure 12: Adapted Water Wheel Blade Drawing The water wheel blade design consists of the shaft attachment and four long blades of cardboard that would catch high winds one blade at a time. The blades were 12” long to catch the strongest wind on the top blade, due to a short shaft design. This prevented the blades from catching winds in two directions that opposed each other. The blades are made of cardboard and are directly hot glued to the shaft attachment. With the shaft attachment, the blade had a mass of 99 grams. ALL DIMENSIONSIN MM.
  31. 31. P a g e | 26 Prototype Three This section will discuss all aspects pertaining to prototype three. Concept Generation and Selection The purpose of the concept generation and selection is to eliminate potentially poor design ideas before they are attempted as prototypes. Thus, this section will focus on various ideas, many of which are not incorporated in the prototype. Base Design The group has decided to make a decision matrix considering the following elements: constrains blade possibilities, cost, simple assembly, stability, and weight. The base should allow for multiple different types of fan blades, but if the base lowers the choices of blades, then it loses value. Cost is also highly rated because the higher the cost for the producer; the higher the cost for the consumer. A simple assembly, simple meaning quick and does not require much effort to build, will allow for us to develop more prototypes in less time if the idea does fail. Stability is the most valuable element to our decision matrix. The project will fail immediately if the project topples and falls. This structure and its strength begins at the base. Weight is another important factor in the group’s decision matrix. The less the structure weights; the easier it will be to transport the turbine.
  32. 32. P a g e | 27 Table 4: Base Design Decision Matrix for Prototype Three Decision Matrix Idea 1 – Long quad base Idea 2 – Pyramid base Idea 3 – Wire Idea 4 – Big Square, Little Circle with a Tail Constrains Blade Possibilities/Motor Mount - 15 2 3 4 4 Cost – 20 4 3 3 5 Simple Assembly – 15 4 2 3 5 Stability – 25 2 4 5 4 Weight – 20 4 3 4 5 Total Points 300 295 370 435 Ideas one through three stayed the same due to the possibility of an improvement in the design factors listed. They retained the same scoring as provided during prototype one because of the lack of changes made to the base throughout the iterations between the first prototype and the third. A square design with a tail scored the highest with an overall score of 435. The number of motor mounting positions placed it around average adaptability. Because of the large amount of material used, it had an average low cost though it features a simple assembly, being a base with a pole, allowing it to score high in that regard. Both the stability and weight were scored as above average because of the size of the base, though those features contribute to the positive attributes of the design and the thinner material which cost and weighed less while retaining the minimum stability needed for the turbine (Contech Engineered Solutions n.d.). A change that was made to the original design that was determined to be better is adding a stabilizer to the rear of the board. This enables an increase in stability though it minimally sacrifices some weight. Cost is not affected due to the size of cardboard purchased.
  33. 33. P a g e | 28 Blade Design To determine the best blade, a decision matrix has been created considering the following elements: adaptability, cost, simple assembly, projected efficiency, and weight. The adaptability of a blade is important because it can allow for various arrangements as well as allowing the base to change around it. The cost is also important to consider because it can be a determinant of whether the customer will choose to purchase the wind turbine. A simple assembly can allow maintenance to be done fast as well as allow a company to build more turbines in less time. The efficiency of the system, and thus the blades, are easily the most important aspect of a turbine because it allows the motor to generate the most power. The weight is also important for all aspects of the machine because it affects the ability to transport the turbine as well as adds extra unneeded force to the base. Table 5: Blade Design Decision Matrix for Prototype Three Decision Matrix Idea 1 – Curved Tri-Blade Idea 2 – River Wheel Idea 3 – Flat shovel blades Idea 4 – Curved Shovel Adaptability - 15 3 1 3 3 Projected Cost - 20 4 1 2 3 Simple Assembly – 15 4 4 3 3 Efficiency – 25 5 3 2 3 Weight – 20 4 1 2 3 Total Points 390 190 220 285 Idea one was the only idea that changed due to the prototype 2’s blade not performing as expected. A curved tri blade that absorbs more of the air and uses the force to push the blade is
  34. 34. P a g e | 29 expected to be relatively adaptable to certain situations but is nowhere near excellent. The ABS printed blade would be relatively cost efficient and would only require payment for the amount of material necessary. This is in contrast to any other form of blade which may use excess material which incurs additional costs. A curved ABS Tri-Blade also requires minimum assembly allowing it to score highly in that category. Due to the swept front of the blade, it is believed that the blade will provide maximum efficiency which gives it top marks in projected efficiency. The lightweight nature of ABS gives the blade system a low projected weight allowing it to do well in that category as well as become a top prospect due to not adding unnecessary weight to the turbine design.
  35. 35. P a g e | 30 Selected Design for Prototype Three The purpose of this Selected Design Concept Discussion is to describe the proposed plan to develop the group's third prototype. This section will discuss the square base, the shaft, the torque support, the motor holder, the motor, and the swept tri-blade design.
  36. 36. P a g e | 31 Final Assembly Figure 13: Full assembled CAD Drawing - Prototype Three
  37. 37. P a g e | 32 Square Base Figure 14: Square Base Drawing The base design in prototype three has several small changes compared to prototype two. For instance, the shaft hole is no longer in the center of the base, it has been moved so that the main shaft was 2” from the front edge. The base is still made of cardboard and had a mass of 48.4 grams. The cardboard used for all cardboard pieces related to the turbine cost $0.62 from Wal-Mart.
  38. 38. P a g e | 33 Base Supports Figure 15: Base Support #1 Drawing Figure 16: Base Support #2 Drawing The base potion of prototype three incorporated two different types of base supports. The base supports uses cardboard and hot glue to attach to the rest of the base. The supports stack up around the hole in the base to support the PVC pipe. The first support is the 4” by 4“ cardboard base support. The next two supports uses 2” by 2” card board supports. Without these supports, the PVC pipe would be less stable and thus could suffer failure. The total mass of the support is 5.6 grams. The hot glue costs totaled $1.04 from Wal-Mart. The cardboard used for the base supports are of the same cardboard used for the base. ALL DIMENSIONSIN MM. ALL DIMENSIONSIN MM.
  39. 39. P a g e | 34 Support Tail Figure 17: Support Tail Drawing The tail attaches to the center of the rear end of the base. The tail pushes up against the wooden back stop so that the turbine can stand near the red line which also helps to increase the stability of the turbine. The tail is connected to the base with hot glue and is composed of cardboard. The mass of the tail is 10.7 grams. The cardboard used for the suport tail is of the same cardboard used for the base.
  40. 40. P a g e | 35 Main Shaft Figure 18: Main Shaft Drawing The shaft is a ½” schedule 40 PVC pipe. The shaft hot glues into the cardboard base and base supports. The PVC pipe weighs just enough to keep the whole turbine down, and does not have much unnecessary mass. The shaft has a mass of 129.2 grams. The cost for 2 feet of ½ inch schedule 40 PVC is $1.26 which can be found at Menards.
  41. 41. P a g e | 36 Torque Support Figure 19: Torque Support Drawing The torque support is a cardboard rectangle that attaches at approximately a 45º angle from the base. The torque support resists motion from pushing the shaft backwards. The rotation of the turbines shaft changed the angle at which the blade accepted wind. With the torque support attached, the blade to catches more wind at the appropriate angle. The torque support has a mass of 2.7 grams. The cardboard used for the motor mount is of the same cardboard used for the base.
  42. 42. P a g e | 37 Motor Mount Figure 14: Motor Mount Drawing The motor mount is simply comprised of cardboard. The center of the cardboard motor mount hotglues to the top of the PVC shaft. Hot glue sufficiently holds the motor in place on top of the motor mount. The end of the motor extends past the edge of the motor mount to support free action of the blade. The mass of the motor mount is 0.6 grams. The cardboard used for the motor mount is of the same cardboard used for the base. ALL DIMENSIONSIN MM.
  43. 43. P a g e | 38 Swept Tri-blade Figure 20: Swept Tri-Blade Drawing The Tri-Blade design looks similar to the the Tri-Force blade design in the first prototype. The main changes in the design mainly has to do with the size of the entire blade and the size of each blade. The Tri-Blade is a very small blade and low density ABS plastic blade so that the force of wind will allow for a faster angular velocity. The blades were also designed to catch wind and rotate clockwise. The Tri-Blade attaches directly to the shaft of the motor. This part has a mass of 8.8 grams. According to $30.00 per kilogram cost, the Swept Tri-Blade costs $0.26.
  44. 44. P a g e | 39 Test Performance for Prototype One The turbine was ran for a timed interval of three minutes using the testing set up provided for experimentation and found that the max voltage was 0.2 volts. The turbine was within the area determined to have the highest air flow and set at the appropriate distance from the air source (Appendix B). The center of the turbine was at approximately 22.5" tall. This placed the turbine in what was measured as the optimal position for usage. The base of the turbine was also tested for stability. This was done by attempting to move the top of the motor mount and ensuring that it held the motor and would not be affected by adverse movements as a result of the air flow acting on it. This ensured a constant position of the propeller and an ample amount of air passing over it as such. The stability test was performed to ensure that the base of the turbine would be safe and hold up to the effects of the air acting on the base during usage. This also confirmed that the turbine would be safe for consumer use. The wind speed test was performed in order to identify the best positioning and placing of the turbine during testing and to give an exact measurement of the forces of the air acting upon the blades of the wind turbine. This prevented the turbine from being placed incorrectly and ensure it was optimally placed and designed to ingest the optimal amount of air. The voltage test was done to test the effectiveness of the turbine and to see if it would produce and acceptable output. This test was conducted with the fully assembled prototype to allow for the most accurate measurement possible. The motor mount and propeller were weighed to calculate the total mass of each and to see if there would be the possibility to reduce the weight in the future to allow for a lighter design of the turbine as a whole. This test showed that the motor mount weighted 37.7 grams and the blades weighted a total of 13.9 grams. It was determined that the blades could be made both larger and thinner in order to improve efficiency and reduce weight. The motor holder could also be lightened by shelling the structure and also making a side of the square tangent to the post to reduce material used, which would also save on cost. Using an equation to determine the power of the generator, 𝑊𝑎𝑡𝑡𝑠 = 𝐶𝑢𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑡 ∗ 𝑉𝑜𝑙𝑡𝑎𝑔𝑒 and 𝐶𝑢𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑡 = 𝑉𝑜𝑙𝑡𝑠 𝑅𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 , it can be determined that the generator produced .00143 watts while the generator was under 28 ohms of resistance. This shows the need for increased efficiency of the blade design and the need for improvement for the generator to produce closer to its two watt capacity in future prototypes (Appendix A).
  45. 45. P a g e | 40 Test Performance for Prototype Two The second prototype was ran for three minutes and produced a maximum voltage of 0.12 volts. This is dismal when compared to what the turbine can produce, and in comparison to the first prototypes maximum voltage. The blade was set at a height of 15" which was determined to be the optimal height so that the majority of the blade would utilize the maximum wind velocity in that region, which would be approximately 20" high (Appendix A). The base was determined to be stable, however, it suffered from extreme vibration, potentially lowering the power and maximum voltage produced. It was able to withstand the minimum requirement of not failing for three minutes which is the primary goal of the base structure. The wind speed test, the stability test, and the voltage test were performed in order to make sure that the prototype would meet the requirements determined by the project, and by the group. While the prototype met these requirements, it performed poorly in the group’s eyes and has multiple aspects that can be improved upon. The weight of the second prototype, in comparison to the first, is extremely heavy. It also produces less power and has a lower maximum voltage which needs to be increased in order for a prototype to become a viable option that is worthy of production. This conclusion was reached by performing wind velocity, stability tests, and also weighing the structure. This enabled the group to find the optimal height for the turbine to operate and also horizontal positioning. A stability test was conducted by running the trial for a three minute period and ensure there were no additional stresses on the turbine. The structure was also weighed to ensure that the structure would not be obscenely heavy, thus potentially affecting the efficiency, and structural integrity. Using an equation to determine the power of the generator, 𝑊𝑎𝑡𝑡𝑠 = 𝐶𝑢𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑡 ∗ 𝑉𝑜𝑙𝑡𝑎𝑔𝑒 and 𝐶𝑢𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑡 = 𝑉𝑜𝑙𝑡𝑠 𝑅𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 , it can be determined that the generator produced .000514 watts while the generator was under 28 ohms of resistance. This shows the increased efficiency of the blade design and the need for improvement for the generator to produce closer to its two watt capacity (Appendix A).
  46. 46. P a g e | 41 Test Performance for Prototype Three The third prototype was ran for three minutes and the maximum voltage produced was 4.01 volts. The voltage was produced at a height of 19.5 inches which was determined to be the optimal height for this blade design (Appendix B). The turbine was centered in the exact location where wind speed was determined to be highest. This allowed the blade to utilize the maximum amount of air and generate the highest voltage possible for this blade design. The base was also tested for stability by running a full three minute run to ensure the prototype would be able to meet the minimum requirements. It was found that with the torque support, the base would enable the shaft to stay straight and thus reduce vibrations that could cause the blade to be less efficient than predicted. The primarily cardboard base withstood the test without issue and proved to be durable for the given conditions. The motor mount weighed a total 0.6 grams which is much lighter than the original motor mounts. The propeller design was also much lighter than all other designs, weighing only 8.8 grams. The overall weight of the structure became considerably lighter due to a change of cardboard thickness and other design differences, which enabled the design to only weigh 254.4 grams. This improves the standing for the weight while also increasing the original durability and power significantly. Using an equation to determine the power of the generator, 𝑊𝑎𝑡𝑡𝑠 = 𝐶𝑢𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑡 ∗ 𝑉𝑜𝑙𝑡𝑎𝑔𝑒 and 𝐶𝑢𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑡 = 𝑉𝑜𝑙𝑡𝑠 𝑅𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 , it can be determined that the generator produced .615 watts while the generator was under 28 ohms of resistance. This shows the increased efficiency of the blade design and the improvement for the generator to produce closer to its two watt capacity (Appendix A). These aspects made turbine three the most efficient and effective option of the three prototypes tested.
  47. 47. P a g e | 42 Conclusion The first prototype met all of the design criteria specified. The wind turbine produced energy and withstood the three minute test period. The base also passed all stability tests allowing for it to be put into production. Given the amount of power that was produced, it is not recommended that this iteration be used as a final product and is therefore not ready for consumer use. There are multiple aspects that could be improved upon. One such aspect would be the blade. The current propeller is not efficient enough for use or further experimentation. It would be beneficial to increase the surface area of the individual blades, as well as produce the blades out of a lighter material. Such materials for the blades could include Styrofoam, balsa wood, or cardboard. Throughout research, it was shown that three long blades were the most efficient design, however the first prototype did not utilize this to its advantage, though it may still be worth developing a new propeller design based on this idea. It would also not drastically affect the cost of the turbine by exploring the route. The second prototype made many of the changes suggested after analyzing the performance of the first prototype. The longer blades that were made to be wider created to much drag for the additional advantage to be used to its full potential. It was also far heavier than the first prototype which added to the list of disadvantages that the second prototype incurred. While the turbine passed all requirements, it did not meet the group’s standards. The group focused on going forward from the second prototype was improving upon the power output, lowering the weight, and increasing the stability of the base. The third prototype remedied the majority of grievances that were had with the previous prototypes. It drastically increased the power output from 0.2 volts to 4.01 volts. This resulted in a power increase of 500% in comparison to the first prototype. While this could be further improved, the group feels that this is satisfactory for the given conditions and the possibilities presented by the current testing protocol. The turbine also weighs less than either prototype further increasing its favorability with the group. The cost also decreased which improves the overall cost effectiveness of the turbine. While, the power and weight could be improved, the group has does not currently have the means to improve upon the third prototype, and while a gear train or belt system could be added, the group does not believe it will be entirely beneficial to the turbine.
  48. 48. P a g e | 43 Budgets The purpose of the budget is to allow the project to be tested with respect to what the total cost of the prototype would be if it were to be put into production. Budget for Prototype One Table 6: Budget for Prototype One Object Price Half-Inch Cardboard Sheet 30” X 40” $1.69 ¾” PVC Pipe 5' $3.91 Motor Holder ABS Plastic $1.13 Tri-Force Blades ABS Plastic $0.42 *Hot Glue Stick 5/16” X 4”* $1.21 Total $8.36 *Found at (MID Hardware n.d.)* Budget for Prototype Two Table 7: Budget for Prototype Two Component Price 11.75” x 8” x 4.75” Shipping Box $0.62 ¾” Schedule 40 PVC Pipe $1.37 Transparent Hot Melt Glue Stick $1.04 Motor Mount $0.27 Motor Attachment $0.63 Total $3.93
  49. 49. P a g e | 44 Budget for Prototype Three Table 8: Budget for Prototype Three Component Price 11.75” x 8” x 4.75” Shipping Box $0.62 1/2” Schedule 40 PVC Pipe 5 feet $1.26 Transparent Hot Melt Glue Stick $1.04 Tri-Blade ABS Plastic $0.26 Total $3.18
  50. 50. P a g e | 45 Mass of Turbine The purpose of these tables is to note and sum all masses of the prototypes in the measurement of grams. Mass of Turbine Prototype One Table 9: Mass of Turbine One Object Mass ¾” PVC Pipe – 19.5” length 154.7g Cardboard 8” x 8” x .5” 22.2g Motor Holder - ABS Plastic 37.7g Tri-Force Propeller 13.9g Motor 56.1g Total 284.6g Mass of Turbine Prototype Two Table 10: Mass of Turbine Two Object Mass 3/4” Schedule 40 PVC Pipe – 15” length 118.6g Base of cardboard 87.7g Water Wheel Blade 98.6g Motor 56.1g Total 361.0g
  51. 51. P a g e | 46 Mass of Turbine Prototype Three Table 11: Mass of Turbine Three Object Mass 1/2” Schedule 40 PVC Pipe – 19” length 129.2g Cardboard 12” x 12” x 1/8” 48.4g Support Materials 5.6g Swept Tri-Blade 8.8g Generator 56.1g Torque Support 2.7g Hot Glue 3.6g Total 254.4g
  52. 52. P a g e | 47 Appendices Appendix A: Generator Specifications
  53. 53. P a g e | 48 Appendix B: Measured Wind Speeds Height in Inches 33 0 0 0 0 0 0.8 0 1 1 0.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 0 0 0 0 0 0.9 1.8 2.8 2.4 1.1 0.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 0 0 0.7 0.8 1 3.7 3.5 5.2 5.5 3.5 1.8 0.8 0 0 0 0 0 27 0 0 0.9 1.3 2.9 2.3 5.5 8.2 12.8 5.0 5 2.4 1.1 0.9 0 0 0 25 0 0 1.4 1.4 5.5 4 5.6 12.5 13.7 8 4.2 3.3 2.4 1.4 0.8 0 0 23 0 0.9 1.6 2.3 6 7.8 14.7 16.9 17.2 11.1 6.4 3.6 2.6 2.1 1.1 0.7 0 21 0 1.2 1.8 4.3 6.4 8.4 18.7 23.1 19.5 13.5 8.5 4.8 3.1 1.9 1 0.8 0 19 0 0.8 1.2 2.9 7.3 10.4 19 21 21 12.5 7 2.6 2.1 1.3 0 0 0 17 0 0 0.9 2.1 5.8 8.5 14 18.6 14 11.2 4.8 2.7 2 1.1 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 1.4 3.2 6.3 8.5 12.4 9.5 7 4.8 1.5 1.1 0.9 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 1.5 4.9 6.8 7.3 5.7 3.4 3 0.9 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0.8 1 2.3 1.8 2.3 0.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.8 0.8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 Width in Inches
  54. 54. P a g e | 49 Works Cited ContechEngineeredSolutions.n.d. Wind TurbineFoundations. AccessedFebruary2,2016. http://www.conteches.com/Markets/Wind-Turbine-Foundations. Gurit.n.d. Wind Turbine Blade StructuralEngineering.AccessedFebruary25,2016. http://www.gurit.com/files/documents/3_blade_structure.pdf. MID Hardware.n.d. Mintcraft,miniglue sticks forjlgg10. AccessedMarch 2, 2016. http://midhardware.com/hardware/product_info.php?products_id=6228761&gclid=COC6m5G NpcsCFQyEaQodkY8AcA. PVCFittingsOnline.n.d. 1"Schedule40 PVCPipe . AccessedMarch 1, 2016. http://www.pvcfittingsonline.com/4004-010ab-1-schedule-40-pvc-pipe-5-ft- section.html?gclid=CjwKEAiAmNW2BRDL4KqS3vmqgUESJABiiwDTEueUgrwMlpEPKA4SSUxtxLlttk M1wys4B5EuFFiVCRoCxQzw_wcB. Utrecht. n.d. UtrechtCorrugated Cardboard 30x 40 inches. AccessedMarch 1, 2016. http://www.utrechtart.com/Utrecht-Corrugated-Cardboard-30-x-40-inches-MP-13900-001- i1015872.utrecht?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cse&utm_term=13900- 3040&country=US&currency=USD&gclid=CjwKEAiAmNW2BRDL4KqS3vmqgUESJABiiwDT3Wi2VJ V4eOJ7gOT8uUQf6Edg6DGw5CWDtzo9.

×