1. Combined Heat and Power System
Ryan Christie
Jason Dikes
Cory Donavon
Nathan Duray
Joseph Mudd
Ronald Stepanek
Supreme Manufacturing
9/20/2018

2. Overview Problem Statement Decision Criteria Feasibility cost analysis
Sub-Teams and Responsibilities
Design Process and Prototype Specifications
Testing and Results
Conclusion and Next Steps
9/20/2018
Ryan Christie

3. Problem Statement
Supreme Manufacturing is dissatisfied with the cost, reliability, and overall efficiency of their current power supply.
9/20/2018
Ryan Christie

4. Decision Matrix
9/20/2018
Ryan Christie

5. budget analysis
9/20/2018
Ryan Christie

6. Full Scale vs. Prototype
Proximity
Proof-of-Concept
Financing
Scalability
Time for Testing and Analysis
Students
Facilitation of Implementation
Manageable 3.5kW Generator
9/20/2018
Ryan Christie

7. Design Process Conceptualization Design Fabrication/ Implementation
Testing
Iteration
9/20/2018
Nathan Duray

8. Sub-Teams and Responsibilities
Power Production (Joe and Jason)
Select appropriate generator, cost analysis, fuel consumption, efficiencies and testing
Heat Recovery System (Nate and Cory)
Heat exchanger design, heat transfer analysis and testing
Control System (Ronnie and Ryan)
Autonomous control system design, programming, temperature sensor network and testing
9/20/2018
Nathan Duray

9. Power Production
9/20/2018

10. Power Production All Power 3.5kW Propane Easily modified
Portable 23’’X18’’X18.5’’
9/20/2018
Jason Dikes

11. Baseline measurements
Measured Before Alterations
.33 gal/hour (half Load)
Exhaust at 405 C
9/20/2018
Jason Dikes

12. Heat Recovery System
9/20/2018

13. Needs Identification Required Heat Transfer Required Oven temperature
Approximately 200 W
Required Oven temperature
93-105° C
- First, we assessed how much energy was stored within the exhaust gas using stoichiometry and heat transfer. Upon calculating the necessary values, we estimated how much energy would be required to heat up the oven. After analysis, it was determined that the waste heat from the exhaust gas could be successfully used to heat the oven.
9/20/2018
Cory Donavon

14. Development of Design
There were a lot of preliminary designs during the brainstorming process. One issue the team foresaw was the potential for the chemical makeup of the exhaust gas to harm the piston molds. This lead the team to choose a counter flow heat exchanger to transfer the heat from the exhaust gas to the oven air without ever making contact.
The oven air would be pushed through the outer pipe via a centrifugal blower. The exhaust gas would flow through the inner pipe, being propelled by the generator.
Once the oven air reached the desired temperature, the valves would close and trap the air within the pipe. This air would become superheated, which would allow the oven to receive a sudden burst of superheated air if it were to dip under the required temperature.
The valves were controlled by servos, which could be automated using the control system, which Ronnie will discuss later.
9/20/2018
Cory Donavon

15. Design Inputs Stoichiometry Key parameters of the Exhaust
Header Temperature: 405°C
Design Based off Analysis Code
9/20/2018
Cory Donavon

16. Fabrication Division of Task Blower Coupling Circulation Valve
Heat Exchanger Duct
9/20/2018
Cory Donavon

17. Control System
9/20/2018

18. Design Required Tasks Final Selection Measure and Record Data
Autonomous Operation
Final Selection
Microcontroller vs. Bare-bones PC
Settled on Arduino Uno R3
9/20/2018
Ronald Stepanek

19. Functionality Input 8 K-type TC Channels Output SD Data Logging
PC Data Logging
Controls Relays and Servos
9/20/2018
Ronald Stepanek

20. Microcontroller Arduino Uno R3 KTA-259 TC Multiplexer
Sparkfun microSD Shield
9/20/2018
Ronald Stepanek

21. Assembly
9/20/2018
Ronald Stepanek

22. 9/20/2018
Ronald Stepanek

23. Experimental design Variable Load Testing
Used to calculate fuel efficiency
Resistive heat load experiment
Log Temperature Values
Measure Fuel Consumption
Calculate Efficiency
Calculate Oven Heat Load
Calculate Efficiency Boost
9/20/2018
Joseph Mudd

24. Experimental design Transient Temperature Experiment
(produces values needed to calculate heat transfer)
Warm up generator
Connect to cold oven
Record temps as oven heats
Record temps at steady state
9/20/2018
Joseph Mudd

25. Results
9/20/2018
Joseph Mudd

26. Thermal Analysis
9/20/2018
Nathan Duray

27. Thermal Analysis
9/20/2018
Nathan Duray

28. Thermal Analysis
9/20/2018
Nathan Duray

29. Cost Analysis - Application
- This graph shows the Cost Analysis for the combined heat and power system compared to the cost from buying from the power company. At an average load of 2000W, the combined heat and power system is upwards of 36% more cost-effective than buying electricity directly from the power company. It is clear from this plot that the main advantage of the combined heat and power system from a cost-analysis standpoint comes into play at higher loads, which is where the system will be operating most of the time.
9/20/2018
Cory Donavon

30. Cost Analysis - Application
Item
Cost ($)
Generator
500
Fuel 60
Hardware
200
Heat Recovery System
250
Control System
Oven 70
Miscellaneous
Total
1530
Budget
2000
The total cost to build the prototype was $1,530. The biggest of these costs was the generator itself. Next were the heat recovery system and the control system. The heat recovery system involved multiple couplings, corrugated tubing and conduit, with the biggest costs being the centrifugal blower and the insulation. The control system involved a lot of thermocouples and servos.
We were able to go well under the budget allotted for the project, which was $2,000.
9/20/2018
Cory Donavon

31. Conclusion Reached desired temperature Validated initial analysis
Cost- effective
Efficient
Our combined heat and power system was a successful proof of concept, since it was able to heat the oven to the desired temperature range and maintain steady state operation.
We were able to validate the initial heat transfer calculations performed on the system, which guided our design process. This was a particularly enjoyable aspect of the design process for the team. We were able to apply the skills learned in class to guide our design and in turn prove the design through testing.
As I mentioned in the cost analysis, the CHP system is significantly more cost effective than buying electricity from the power company. In addition, the benefits will continue to rise as the system is scaled up to meet the needs of our client.
The figure shows our efficiency relative to traditional power suppliers, such as solar or coal energy. Our system is displayed as the two light red columns on the right. The pink column, second from the right, shows the efficiency of the generator before adding the heat recovery system, while the rightmost column shows the efficiency with the heat recovery system. There is a clear boost in efficiency, which allows us to be comparable to a traditional coal power plant. It should also be noted that our efficiency will continue to rise as we operate at lower elevations and with a larger generator, such as in Houston, where our project will be utilized.
9/20/2018
Cory Donavon

32. Conclusion
Reliable system producing electricity and recovering waste heat
Alternative fuel source
Autonomous operation
Competitive with highly efficient sources of energy
Save 30% on annual expenses
Overall, our system is reliable and will consistently produce electricity for the manufacturing plant while recovering the waste heat from the exhaust to directly power the ovens used in the facility. This makes use of existing waste heat while also reducing the overall load required by the plant.
We incorporate an alternative fuel source which produces less greenhouse gases than coal power plants.
The system is self-monitoring and completely autonomous. It is able to record several temperatures simultaneously.
As the system is scaled up, we are likely to be very competitive with other highly-efficient sources of energy.
The Combined Heat and Power system will save the user about 30% on their annual expenses, when compared to a coal power plant.
9/20/2018
Cory Donavon

33. Save Supreme Manufacturing a minimum of 30% on annual energy Bill
Next Steps
Follow-up with client
Further research and design for a full-scale system
Full-scale constraint:
Save Supreme Manufacturing a minimum of 30% on annual energy Bill
9/20/2018
Ryan Christie

34. Questions
9/20/2018