ILC Leak Detection. University of Delaware MEEG Senior Design Phase III Review Team # 8. Megan Boaman Roseann Boyer Eddie Knotts Tripp Wagner

Transcription

1 ILC Leak Detection University of Delaware MEEG Senior Design Phase III Review Team # 8 Megan Boaman Roseann Boyer Eddie Knotts Tripp Wagner

2 Today's Agenda Problem Definition Design Process Concept Selection Testing Final Concept Selection Final Design

3 Background One of the most important maintenance repairs performed on the airships is that of a leak check. ILC currently uses a Soap and Water Method. These checks are preformed on three different occasions.. Prior to delivery to the customer, a check is completed to determine if there are any holes in the airship. ILC recommends that the customers perform a leak check at least once a year. If a customer experiences any problems during the airships life, ILC is responsible for finding and repairing the leaks.

4 Problem Definition Investigate and determine the viability of technologies for detecting leaks on the Lighter-Than-Air (LTA) products. Modify existing technology to work on LTA airships. Investigate ways to improve ILC s current soap and water method for detecting leaks.

5 Design Process Customer Wants Tim Miller LTA Project Engineer Ralph Weis Head of Engineering Department Airship Inspectors LTA Engineers/Employees Lower operating cost, No damage to airship, Detection of various sized holes Lower operating cost, Detection of various sized holes, No damage to airship No damage to airship, Detection of various sized holes, Work under standard operating conditions

6 Design Process Wants Metrics Lower Operating Cost No damage to the airship Detection of various sized holes Set-up, Operating, and Clean-up Time; Number of Operators; Capital Expense Abrasiveness of detector; Substances that contact the airship Operating Conditions (ie: temperature, pressure); Detect all size and types of holes

7 Design Process Metrics Target Values Temperature Pressure Set-up Time Operating Time Clean-Up Time Size hole detected < 100 o F IWG < 4 hours < 20 hours < 12 hours > 1/32 Dia.

8 Initial Concept Ranking Soap and Water Ultra Sound Concept Ranking Sniffer 8 Infrared Trace Gas Rank (UDesign) 6 4 Thermal Imager 2 Vapor Detection Modified Soap & Water Soap & Water Test Ultra Sound Detection Sniffers Infrared Detection Trace Gases Thermal Scan Vapor Detection Modified Soap and Water Concept

9 Concept Selection, Testing, & Results The team tested the four most viable solutions, which are: Sniffer Modified Soap and Water Thermal Imager Vapor Detection

10 Sniffer Procedure: Results: Filled pillow with O 2 and a small hole was poked in the pillow. A 4 funnel was attached to the Sniffer s wand. The funnel was placed directly over the hole, 3, and 6 above the hole. The readout from the Sniffer was recorded. The process was repeated with a 6 funnel Parts per Million Oxygen Readout From Sniffer " 3" 6" Inches From Surface Intial 4" Funnel 6" Funnel

11 Thermal Imager Procedure: A pin-size hole was poked into the airship pillow and clearly marked. The pillow was filled with 95 F air. Pillow was viewed through imager immediately, 5 and 10 minutes later. Results: Operator was unable to distinguish were hole was located. Airship material did not retain enough heat to create the temperature differential required by the thermal imager.

12 Vapor Detection Procedure: Inflated airship pillow with vapor UV light scanned across the entire surface of the pillow Operators examine pillow for holes Results: Smoke was visibly seen exiting the hole. The hole glowed a fluorescent purple when the UV light was passed over it. Not cost effective because numerous machines needed to fill airship.

13 Chosen Concept Modified Soap and Water Method Identified two areas that needed improvement. Application: Pressure Washer Burnout Clean Up Method: Decrease Time and Effort to complete

14 Re-Design Process After selecting the Modified Soap and Water Method, we began the re-design process Performed UDesign process Focused on clean up method and burn out of the pressure washer Determined the minimum soap concentration needed to identify holes.

15 Modified Soap and Water Re-Design Process Reducing Clean-up Time: Customers Wants Metrics Target Values Tim Miller Lower Operating Time Set-up Time < 4 hours Ralph Weis Lower Operating Cost Clean-up Time < 12 hours LTA Engineers No damage to the airship Cost Effective < $10,000 Work in Hanger Yes / No Eliminating Pressure Washer Burnout: Customers Wants Metrics Target Values Tim Miller Reduce Cost Recurring Cost < 8,500 Ralph Weis Does not damage airship One Time Cost < $25,000 LTA Engineers No need to replace pressure Temperature < 100 o F washer Pressure IWG Time to operate < 48 hours

16 Clean Up Method Concept Ranking Sump pumps Ripple effect Tarp w/pvc Current Method Platform Platform w/gutters Inclined Platform Tenting the tarp Sump-Pumps 'Ripple' effect Tarp bounded with PVC Concept Ranking 1.6 Current Clean-Up Method Platform Beneath the airship Platform w/ 'gutters' Inclined Platform

17 Pressure Washer Burn-out Current Method Concept Ranking Industrial Washer 6 Current Washer w/pump Ranking Window Washer Existing Industrial Existing with pump Window Washer Agricultural Spray Chemical Injector Agricultural Spray Chemical Injector -4

18 Soap Concentration Test Performed test to determine the minimum soap concentration needed. Made three holes in pillow Hole Hole Hole

19 Soap Concentration Test Seven tests run: Trial 1 (1:3) Trial 2 (1:20) Trial 3 (1:40) Trial 4 (1:60) Trial 5 (1:80) Trial 6 (1:100) Trail 7 (1:150) Results: - Bubbles formed - Bubbles formed - Bubbles formed - Bubbles formed - Bubbles formed - Bubbles formed - No Bubbles

20 Conclusion The 1:100 concentration of soap to water was the minimum that is sufficient to detect the holes. Therefore, the soap and water can be automatically mixed by the application device.

21 Modified Soap and Water Final Design Application: Use a Chemical Injector that automatically mixes the soap and water Clean Up Method: Three sides of tarp rolled around PVC piping Cylinder under open side of tarp for the ripple effect Use a Sump Pump to remove the water from the hangar

22 Chemical Injector Chemical Injector Benefits: Powered by water Mix soap and water to an exact ratio Low Maintenance Low Cost Works with a ¾ garden hose Any nozzle attachment can be used

23 Injector Specifications Model DI 16 Overall Size Overall Weight Water Flow Rate Operating water pressure Concentration Ratio 4 1/8 x 6 ¼ x pounds Min 0.05 GPM Max 11 GPM Min 4.3 psi Max 85 psi 1:64 to 1:500

24 Cost Estimate for Final Implementation Part Manufacturer Part Number Quantity Cost / unit Price PVC Sewer And Drain Pipe (6" pipe size, 4-1/2-ft length) McMaster Carr 2426K73 62 $13.00 $ PVC Pipe Fitting (Coupling, Socket- Weld, Schedule 40) McMaster Carr 4880K131 8 $9.45 $75.60 Sump Pump Zoeller Model 42 1 $73.50 $73.50 Chemical Injector Dosatron DI16 1 $ $ Filter Dosatron AKF5AP11KIT 1 $31.50 $31.50 Check Value Dosatron CV34-11GPM 1 $7.76 $7.76 Garden Hose Sears Hardware $39.99 $39.99 Tarp 50 x 150 Tarps Plus N/A 1 $ $ Rope Home Depot SNR $0.16 / ft $9.60 Velcro Industrial Strength Tape MSC $20.33 / 30ft $81.32 Dosa-Cart Dosatron 1 $ $ Manual Bypass Dosatron 1 $36.10 $36.10 Total Cost: $1,992.43

25 Handoff / Recommendations Includes: Chemical Injector, filter, and check valve Modified Soap and Water Instructions Instructions to build the modified tarp Bill of Materials Diagrams showing injector and clean up set-ups Recommendations for additional equipment Various equipment purchased for testing

26 Thank You! Any Questions?

27 Diagram of Chemical Injector Set-up

28 Diagram of Clean Up Set-up