You are on page 1of 48

Little Windy

Your own custom wind turbine!

M E 340 Educational Wind Turbine Final Report


December 16, 2013

Team 2D
Kelsa Benensky
Taylor Berrian
Stephen Pitterle
Feng Qin

kmb6086@psu.edu
tsb5097@psu.edu
sjp5332@psu.edu
fzq5003@psu.edu

Executive Summary
The establishment of science in the elementary and middle school classroom is essential to
successful education reform in the United States. Schools are looking for alternative methods
that are both fun and educational to teach science to the young generation. Little Windy is a
vertical axis table top wind turbine (WT) that can be used to generate power from an ordinary
household fan. Customers indicated that they would prefer a product that had high educational
value, was low cost, and could perform well under a variety of operating conditions. Little
Windy is a memorable and interactive alternative to text book reading and worksheets because of
its interchangeable blades and ability to perform in varying wind conditions. Children and
educators will always remember Little Windy because of the fun they had creating their own
unique wind turbine.
Little Windy was designed utilizing a permanent magnet DC motor, safe, interchangeable blades,
vertical axis design, sturdy housing, and friendly user interface. The vertical axis design allowed
for the Little Windy design to be operated at varying wind speeds and directions, with the easy
flick of a switch. An interchangeable blade structure was chosen by the team because of its
potential for high educational value. This would allow children to use their own logic and
creativity to create the best design based on turbine efficiency. Little Windy is a versatile, long
lasting wind turbine that helps educators to create a memorable lesson plan that students will
carry with them for the rest of their lives. For a $75 retail price, the projected four year NPV of
production of 100,000 units a year for this project was $3.64 million. The Little Windy beta
prototype was able to produce 12.96 mW at wind speeds of 3.6 m/s.

Little Windy

Team 2D

Page 1 of 48

Table of Contents
1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.
8.
9.

Introduction .
1.1.
Problem Statement ..
1.2.
Background Information .
1.3.
Project Planning ..
1.3.1. Design Process
1.3.2. Management Structure
Customer Needs and Specifications
2.1.
Identification of Customer Needs
2.2.
Design Specifications ..
Concept Development .
3.1.
External Search
3.2.
Problem Decomposition ..
3.3.
Concept Generation .
3.4.
Concept Selection
System Level Design ...
4.1.
Overall Description ..
4.2.
Preliminary Theoretical Analysis .
4.3.
Preliminary Economic Analysis
Detailed Design .
5.1.
Non-Editorial Changes to Proposal Section ..
5.2.
Final Theoretical Analysis
5.3.
Component & Material Selection Process for Mass Production Unit .....
5.4.
Fabrication Processes for the Mass Production Unit
5.5.
Industrial Design ...
5.6.
Detailed Drawings
5.7.
Economic Analysis ...
5.7.1. Unit Production Cost
5.7.2. Business Case Justification ..
5.8.
Safety Analysis ....
5.9.
Actual Construction Process of Beta Prototype ..
Prototyping and Testing ...
6.1.
Test Procedure and Plan ...
6.2.
Test Results and Discussion of Results ............
Conclusion and Recommendations ..
References
Appendices ...
A. Initial Theoretical Analysis ....
B. Project Management ...

Little Windy

Team 2D

4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
6
6
7
8
9
10
10
10
11
11
12
12
13
13
13
14
14
14
14
15
15
17
17
17
18
19
20
20
21

Page 2 of 48

C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
L.
M.
N.
O.

Little Windy

Identifying Customer Needs ...


Benchmarking .....
Patent Search ..
Concept Generation
Concept Selection ...
Preliminary Economic Analysis ..
Completed Testing Data ..
Final Theoretical Analysis ...
Preliminary Mass Production Unit Processes ..
Detailed Drawings ...
Unit Price Analysis ..
Net Present Value ....
Testing and Procedures ....

Team 2D

23
26
27
31
33
36
36
38
39
40
44
46
48

Page 3 of 48

1. Introduction
1.1. Problem Statement
Recently, there has been a large push within the United States for public education reform. The
establishment of science within the elementary classroom is pivotal to the success of this reform.
Unfortunately, research by the University of California Berkeley and SRI International shows
that 40% of surveyed elementary school educators allocated an hour or less to science each
week; 13% allocated less than half an hour [1]. It is recognized more emphasis needs to be
placed on science education and 92% of surveyed principals believe that this education should
begin as early as kindergarten [1]. For the 2011 fiscal year, $897.2 billion dollars was invested
into U.S. education with increased funding devoted to the development of successful science
programs [2]. To address the need for an innovative, educational, and interactive solution, Team
2D has been asked to create a table top wind turbine (WT) for use by students aged 6 -12.
To ensure appropriate and successful project completion, several constraints have been identified
to appropriately complete the teams objective. The WT must be safe, portable, and easily
assembled by young students. For the WT to easily demonstrate educational concepts, it must be
able to operate at varying wind speeds and direction. The WT will use a permanent magnet DC
motor to generate electricity. Lastly, an integrated user interface will allow for an easy, safe shut
off and give indication of power generation.

1.2. Background Information


In order to evaluate and demonstrate the educational potential of the table top wind turbine, this
section will discuss the major components of the WT and their functions. First, wind applies a
pressure to the face of the wind turbine blade. The shape of the blade causes a pressure
difference between the front and back blade faces, causing the blades to turn. A shaft is
connected to the blades and rotates as the blades turn. At low wind speeds, the shaft will not
rotate quickly. Therefore, a large gear is attached to the bottom of the shaft and is in contact with
a smaller gear is attached to a shaft of an electric generator. The gear ratio will allow the small
gear to rotate quickly and sufficient power will be generated. See Appendix A figure A.2 for
diagram.

1.3. Project Planning


1.3.1. Design Process
First and foremost, Team 2D acknowledged the importance of a well-established design process
to ensure the successful completion of a short term, high risk project. The design process is based
upon the front-end process for concept development outlined by Product Design and
Development, 5th Edition by Ulrich and Eppinger (Figure 1).

Figure 1 Front-End Design Process [3]


Little Windy

Team 2D

Page 4 of 48

Thus far, the team has identified customer needs through surveys and benchmarking, chosen
initial specifications, generated concepts, and selected a final concept of an interchangeable
blade vertical axis wind turbine. Team 2D is utilizing a Gannt Chart (Appendix B) to track
project progress and upcoming milestones.
1.3.2. Management Structure
Members were selected as leaders in the technical areas of design and project management
(Appendix B). Although certain leaders have been selected, all team members are expected to
contribute to all aspects of the design process from project management, technical writing, and
completion of CAD models. This requires a large initial investment in time to make sure all
members are on the same page, but ultimately allows for the most flexibility in team member
schedules and less risk for overall project completion.

2. Customer Needs and Specifications


2.1. Identification of Customer Needs
The first and most important step in product design is to identify customer needs. For our design,
we used a questionnaire (Appendix C) to obtain information from potential customers. The target
audience of the questionnaire was children aged 6 12 and elementary level educators. This
audience was chosen because the one of the main purposes for this design is to help children
understand the main components of a WT and how it works in a school setting. By surveying
both the educator and student, we were able to gain valuable information so that we can target
our product for the buyer (educator) and user (student). From the questionnaire feedback, we
found performance, cost, and safety were most valued by customers. Secondary needs included
durability, educational value, and assembly time.
Table 1 Customer Needs
Primary needs
Cost

Customer Needs
Secondary Needs
Durable

Tertiary Needs
Simple Design

Performance

Easy to Assemble

Reasonable Sizes

Safety

Educational Value

Low Maintenance

2.2. Design Specifications


Customer needs identified by the questionnaire were used to develop a QFD (Appendix C Table
C.2) and need-metrics chart (Appendix D Table D.1). Customer needs were broken down into
initial specifications. For example, product durability was identified as a customer need.
Customers are looking for a WT that will not break into pieces after falling from a table.
Therefore, this need was translated into number of uses before maintenance is required and
strength of materials. A high quality WT ensures its use for a long time without maintenance and
maximizes its educational value. Each specification was composed of a metric and value. An
AHP chart (Appendix G Table G.2) was used to determine the weighting factor for each
specification.

Little Windy

Team 2D

Page 5 of 48

3. Concept Development
3.1. External Search
In order to design a functional and highly educational WT, external search was conducted to
familiarize the team with the fundamentals of wind turbines, power generation, and DC motors.
Our team also completed a thorough benchmarking process to aid with the generation and
selection of concepts for our final design. Many pre-existing designs were analyzed (Table 2)
and the best features of these designs were incorporated to create a state-of-the-art educational
WT kit. A complete analysis of the benchmarking results is available in Appendix D.
LEGO [4]

This product is
designed to educate
middle school aged
children while
working in small
groups. The turbine
has an electronic
interface that shows
various outputs.

The LEGO
construction of this
turbine is effective at
engaging students and
the electronic
interface is excellent.
Our team hopes to
incorporate features
such as the easily
changeable turbine
design and the
interactive display.
Cost: $99.95
Little Windy

Table 2 - Benchmarking Summary


Pico Turbine [5]
Wind Trap [6]

Product Description
This product uses a
This product is highly
simple and attractive
versatile and
design to demonstrate experiments can be
the basic principles of conducted with
power generation
various gear ratios,
through easily visible blade angles, number
magnets and wire
of blades, and type of
coils connected to the output indication.
base and shaft of the
turbine.
Product Analysis
This design focuses
This design is very
more on the actual
effective due to the
process of converting high level of
wind energy into
interaction it presents
electrical energy. Our though the variety of
team hopes to imitate interchangeable
the simplicity of this
features. Our team
design but improve
would like to include
upon the educational
interchangeable
value.
features but at a lower
cost.
Cost: $49.95

Cost: $202.64
Team 2D

Primary Science
STEPS [7]

This product is
designed with 20
different possible
experiments that can
be performed. The
turbine is constructed
from easily
interchangeable parts
and safe for children 8
and older.
This design is very
versatile and highly
educational due to the
number of different
experiments that can
be performed.
However there are
over 100 parts, which
could lead to
confusion or difficulty
in setup.
Cost: $49.26
Page 6 of 48

For further analysis, a patent search was conducted to evaluate alternative blade designs for
vertical axis wind turbines. This search yielded valuable and more specific considerations for
future detailed design. A summary of this search can be found in Table 3 and full copies of the
patents are available in Appendix E.
Table 3 Patent Search
Extended Blades [8]

Vertically Extended
Sails [9]

Pivoting Arc Blades


[10]

Dual Bladed [11]

Analysis: This design


is similar to our
concept 4 with a
different blade style.
This blade style was
considered but
rejected due to
uncertainty in
effectiveness at low
wind speeds

Analysis: This design


incorporates two
staggered blade
sections with helical
form. The staggered
blade configuration
attempts to improve
energy capture from
all directions

Analysis: This design


incorporates blades
that collapse to
minimize drag. This
was considered as a
design possibility in
the final design.

Analysis: This single


bladed turbine design
incorporates a vertical
and a horizontal
blade. The use of a
combined blade
structure improves the
overall efficiency of
the blade.

3.2. Problem Decomposition


In order to understand the impact of subsystems on the system level design, team 2D utilized a
two-step process for problem decomposition:
1. Black Box Diagram
2. Sub-Problem Trees
First, the team used a Black Box diagram to divide the problem into appropriate sub-systems
(figure 2). These sub-systems were then divided into individualized sub-problems. For each subproblem, a Concept Classification Tree was created; these trees are summarized below.

Performance: Blades, Motor, Efficiency


Output Identification: Electrical, Educational, Audio, and Visual
Turbine Blades: Shape, Spacing, Number, Angle of Attack, Vertical or Horizontal
Housing and Assembly: Number of Parts, Motor and Gears, WT Type

Little Windy

Team 2D

Page 7 of 48

Figure 2 Black Box Diagram

3.3. Concept Generation


The lessons learned through our external search and problem decomposition processes were used
to develop unique concepts for an educational WT. Each team member contributed concepts
developed through brainstorming resulting in nine total concepts for initial concept selection.
Each concept was presented as a sketch and addressed a specific problem identified during the
problem decomposition stage. Due to the high number of initial concepts, a multi-voting process
was used to narrow the number of concepts to consider. Each team member was given 6 stickers
with which to vote for a specific concept. The top six concepts were then chosen for the next
phase of concept selection. These concepts are shown in Appendix F. The designs featured in
Table 4 show the most promising features of the initial concept generation.
Concept 1: Multi-Bladed
Vertical

This design was created to


have a high power output due
to the high combined surface
area from the multiple blades.

Little Windy

Table 4 Initial Design Features


Concept 3: Interchangeable
Horizontal

This design was intended to be


highly educational by
demonstrating how using
different blade configurations
affect power output.

Team 2D

Concept 4: Extended Blade


Vertical

This design was intended to be


highly efficient though the use
of blades extended
horizontally from the shaft.

Page 8 of 48

3.4. Concept Selection


Using the generated concepts, initial concept selection was carried out using a concept screening
matrix. This matrix is summarized in Table 5. See Appendix G for complete matrix.

Concept #
Net Score
Rank
Continue?

Table 5 Results of Initial Concept Screening


1
2
3
4
2
0
1
0
1
3
2
3
Y
Y
Y
Y

5
-2
5
N

6
-4
6
N

Four designs were selected for continuation based on concept screening results. A concept
scoring matrix was used to pick the best of these designs (Appendix G Table G.3). The
weightings used in the concept scoring matrix were generated using an Analytic Hierarchy
Process (AHP) shown also in Appendix G. The results of the scoring matrix indicated that
Concept 1 (Multi-Bladed Vertical WT) was the most promising design given the target
specifications. The team also decided to incorporate the interchangeable blade design from
Concept 3 (Interchangeable Blade Horizontal WT) which ranked second highest in our scoring
process. This combination ensures both educational value and high performance for our final
design.

4. System Level Design


4.1. Overall description
Support system

Blades (4)

Shaft

DC Motor

Figure 3 System Level Design

Little Windy

Team 2D

Page 9 of 48

As depicted above, our plan is to move forward with a


vertical axis wind turbine (VAWT) design (figure 3).
The VAWT was chosen over the traditional horizontal
design to eliminate any hassles to the user caused by
varying wind speed and direction. In addition, the
VAWT will be safe and stable to use. A key feature of
our design is the unique turbine shaft (figure 4). Custom
blades will be machined to connect and disconnect
easily with the shaft. This allows educators and children
to explore the effect of different blade arrangements on
system efficiency. The team is still considering
innovative blade designs to appeal to our market without
sacrificing performance.
The use of a VAWT
interchangeable blade configuration distinguishes our
product from our competitors, who only have marketed
an interchangeable blade option for HAWT designs.
While our design is simple, the turbines simplicity aids Figure 4 Wind Turbine Shaft Detail
in the educational value for our intended audience.
Simplicity in the design allows educators to easily teach students how wind energy is harnessed.

4.2. Preliminary Theoretical Analysis


There are several key parameters that have to be considered during the design process: swept
area, power and power coefficient, tip speed ratio, and DC motor type. Swept area is the cross
sectional area of the turbine that the air sees in its path. Swept area can be calculated by
multiplying the wind turbine rotor diameter by the blade length (Eq. 1).
From the analysis presented in Appendix A, the available power from the wind to the turbine is
directly related to the velocity of the wind, the swept area, and the density of the air (Eq. 2).
The power the turbine actually takes from wind is calculated using the power coefficient. The
power coefficient (also known as efficiency) is the ratio of captured mechanical power by blades
and the available power of the wind (Eq.3):

The tip speed ratio is defined as the ratio between the tangential speed at the blade tip and the
actual wind speed (Eq. 4). This is a very important parameter to consider when designing the
blades because it governs effect of blade design on system efficiency. Each design has an
optimal tip speed ratio at which the maximum power extraction is achieved.

Five different motors were considered to be used as a generator in our design. In class, the
performance of each motor was analyzed theoretically through measurements of speed, current,
efficiency, and output power as a function of torque. Based on the high rating of output power
and efficiency specified by our customer needs analysis, the Jameco 238473 DC Motor was
chosen. This motor has one of the highest efficiency ratings (75%) and a high torque at

Little Windy

Team 2D

Page 10 of 48

maximum efficiency (0.0183 Nm) [12]. Plots of torque vs. efficiency and speed vs. efficiency for
our selected motor are shown in figures 5 and 6 below.

Figure 5 Jameco 238473 Motor Data

Figure 6 Jameco 238473 Motor Data

4.3. Preliminary Economic Analysis


Based on market research and competitive analysis, team 2D aims for our product to have a retail
price of $40 to $70. There are several competitors (table 2) that currently sell a similar product
for over $100. Our price point will be achievable based on the simple design with few light
weight components which corresponds to a less expensive material cost (Appendix H).

5. Detailed Design

Figure 7 Little Windy Detailed Design Exploded View

Little Windy

Team 2D

Page 11 of 48

5.1. Modifications to Proposal Sections


Since the project proposal, two changes have been introduced to increase product performance
and ergonomic appeal. The most fundamental change made was introducing an end cap to
connect the blade to the shaft. This end cap is connected to the shaft and is designed with curved
grooves, allowing the user to easily slide blades into position. The introduction of the end cap
also allowed us to achieve higher performance levels (Section 6) by offsetting the blades away
from the shaft. This increases the torque received from the WT, thus increasing power output.
Because of these design changes, the retail price for Little Windy has been increased to $75.

5.2. Final Theoretical Analysis


The primary parameters of interest for our WT are operating speed, power output, and efficiency
of the unit. All given data in this section was derived from previous testing data on our alpha
prototype (Appendix I). Test procedure and details are explained in Section 6.2. The WT will
produce a torque on the shaft which is transmitted through a gear and pinion to the motor to
create electricity. The torque versus shaft speed was plotted for all experimental values and
utilized to determine a gear ratio for the design (Appendix I - Figure I.1). The modified WT
torque curves were matched against the motor generating curves as determined in class, and it
was found the Jameco motor No. 238437 and a 2:1 gear ratio would be the most desirable pair to
produce the most torque based upon available testing data (Appendix I Figure I.2). The optimal
motor operating conditions will occur at an input speed of approximately 400 rpm (Figure 8).
Using motor testing data, the expected WT power will be 44.2 mW. This was calculated using
the value of 400 rpm in the linear fit equation generated from the DC motor data (Figure 9).

Turbine - DC Motor Data

3.5

0.6

Motor 238437 Speed vs Power


Output

3
0.5

Expected
Turbine Output
238473

1.5
1

Power (W)

Torque (mN-m)

2.5
0.4
0.3
0.2

y = 0.0004x - 0.1158
0.1

0.5

0
0

500

1000
Speed (rpm)

1500

Figure 8 Turbine and DC Motor Data Expected


Torque Curves

500

1000
1500
Speed (rpm)

2000

Figure 9 Power Output v. Input Speed


for Jameco Motor No. 238437

The overall system efficiency can be determined by comparing the electrical output of the motor
to the maximum power available from the wind (Eq. 5):
(Eq. 5)

Little Windy

Team 2D

Page 12 of 48

Remember maximum power available from the wind was described in Section 4 Eq. 2. In our
analysis, the swept wind area is 70 in.2 and wind speed is expected to be 3.9 m/s, therefore an
efficiency of 2.6 % is expected for our product overall. Because this data was calculated using
alpha prototype values, we expect efficiency up to 15 30% with the mass production unit
because of the lighter materials utilized and a more precise design. Please see Appendix J. for
complete calculations.

5.3. Component & Material Selection Process for Mass Production Unit
Team 2D recognizes the importance of a safe, inexpensive, and environmentally friendly
product. Therefore, purchased materials and components were selected with the customer in
mind. All parts made in-house are made of ABS plastic through an injection molding process
with the exception of the WT end caps which are made of acryclic. Both ABS plastic and
acryclic are inexpensive and recyclable materials which minimalize costs and impact on the
environment. Purchased components were minimalized and selected for their perceived
performance. This ensures that each customer receives a product he or she can value. The
selection process can be found in Appendix K and Final Material and Component Selections can
be found in our Bill of Materials in Appendix M.

5.4. Fabrication Processes for Mass Production Unit


In order to fabricate Little Windy for mass production, main components (shaft, blades, and base
shell) will be injection molded from ABS plastic. The WT end caps can be either injection
molded or machined with a laser cutter from acrylic. The injection molding process will enable a
quick and intuitive assembly and minimize the time and cost required to produce the projected
100,000 units per year. Parts must be inspected and prepared for assembly after completion. Two
processes may run in parallel during assembly: assembly of the base and assembly of the WT
blade configuration. The motor and electrical components must be assembled into their
designated sections of the base shell. The pinion will be attached to the motor and a bearing will
be snapped into a cavity at the center of the inner shell. Then, the base shell can be sealed shut to
ensure safety. The shaft must be assembled with the purchased gear. The base and electrical
components will be packaged as fully assembled, whereas the end caps, shaft, and blades will be
packaged as individual components. Please see Appendix K for a process flow chart.

5.5. Industrial Design


Our WT can be assembled and disassembled without using
tools. It combines the educational functions and aesthetics
very well at a proper size. The blades are attached to the
end caps by simply by sliding them into the gaps. This
design benefits not only educationally but also with the
maintenance of a broken blade. Most importantly, users
can adjust the number of blades and swept area by
offsetting the blades within the gaps which can educate
them about the relationship between the swept area, system
balance, and the power generated. This approach also
maximizes the safety of the product; keeping all parts
secure and compact.

Little Windy

Team 2D

Figure 10 Interchangeable
Blade End Caps

Page 13 of 48

5.6. Detailed Drawings


Figures 7 and 11 display an exploded view of Little Windy. All detailed drawings can be found
in Appendix L.

Figure 11 Little Windy Exploded View

5.7. Economic Analysis


5.7.1. Unit Production Cost
Unit production cost was determined to be $63.82 after incorporating manufacturing, assembly,
and overhead costs for 100,000 units produced per year. Unit price predictions were determined
using a detailed analysis and is shown in our Bill of Materials (Appendix M - Table M.1). The
mass production unit will be sold at a price of $75.00, a 20% profit. The number of components
is minimalized by injection molding, thus decreasing the cost of assembly and offset the large
upfront cost of injection molding machines ($10,000 - 100,000).
5.7.2. Business Case Justification
With a unit price of $75.00, the Net Present Value (NPV) for the project is predicted to be
$3.640 million (Appendix N - Table N.1) for the base case model. In a period of 4 years we plan
to sell a total of 400,000 units (100,000 units per year) at a fixed price of $75 per unit. In order to
calculate the project NPV, we considered the sum of inflows and outflows for each quarter with
an annualized discount rate of 10%. The Present Value is given in Eq. 6:
(Eq. 6)
(
)
Where r is the quarterly interest rate, assumed to be 10%, and n is the given quarter. The Net
Present Value can be found by taking the sum of the Present Values calculated for each quarter.
The largest investment costs are associated with development, ramp-up, and production. Raising
the unit price at $75.00 still keeps the unit competitive in the market compared to the $100 Lego
Little Windy

Team 2D

Page 14 of 48

and $200 Wind Trap models available. We believe that because our product is customizable and
easy to assemble, it will appeal to schools more than the less expensive Pico Turbine and
Primary Steps models ($50 each). By limiting the number of parts that can be lost or broken and
still allowing for quality levels of interaction for students and educators, Little Windy will be
more appealing to schools and still allow for a $3.640 million NPV to be achieved.

5.8. Safety Analysis


Little Windy meets both national and international standards for safety. In accordance to ISO
8124-1 [15], our product does not contain any removable parts which can be swallowed by
children under 14 years old. The design is optimized to avoid any sharp edges, blades are made
of ABS plastic, and there is a rotating speed limit intrinsic to the design. This ensures no harm if
any part of the body, touches the rotating blades. According to European toy standard 88/378/EC
[16], the nominal operating voltage of the toy cannot exceed 24 V; our output is designed to be
much lower (0.5 V) so that there is no possibility of electric shock to the children. However,
meeting all the standards does not mean the WT is 100% safe. Components made with ABS and
acrylic are flammable at high temperatures. The product must be taken care of as blades and caps
may break into pieces when great external forces are applied. Team 2D plans to add precautions
on unit packaging and instructions to ensure safe usage.

5.9. Actual Construction Process of Beta Prototype


The Little Windy beta prototype was completed
in three general steps:
1. Machining and Fabrication of Parts
2. Assembly of Mechanical Parts
3. Assembly of Electrical Components
Several parts were machined:
WT Blades (3)
WT End Caps (2)
Housing Sides & Base
Motor Coupling
Shaft Connector
The first components to be created were the
blades. The blades were cut from a flexible,
form-retaining plastic found in the scrap
material area at the Learning Factory. The next
components to be created were the blade end
caps which connect the blade to the shaft. The
end caps were cut from a 1/8 in. sheet of
Figure 12 - Little Windy Beta Prototype
acrylic using the laser cutter. The housing of
the turbine was then cut from 0.21 in. thick acrylic using the laser cutter. The walls and bottom
of the base were cut with a puzzle piece shape so that they could be easily assembled and then
they were assembled together using hot glue to form a solid base. A motor coupling was also
fabricated. The motor coupling was made using a pipe bracket attached to a L-shaped sheet of
aluminum. The shaft was machined from a 1/4 in. diameter scrap metal rod found at the learning

Little Windy

Team 2D

Page 15 of 48

factory. The next component to be made was the connector piece that connected the motor shaft
and the motor gear. The small shaft connector was machined from a brass rod using a lathe.

Figure 13 Little Windy


Electrical Configuration

During assembly of the mechanical parts, the end caps were


attached to the shaft using hot glue. The bearing onto the shaft
and press fit the shaft gear onto the shaft. The motor coupling
was hot-glued into the box at the correct location, securely
holding the motor in place at the correct height. Finally, the
motor gear was then press fit onto the brass connecting rod and
then both pieces were press fit onto the shaft of the turbine. After
the main components were constructed, slits and holes were
machined into the housing base and lid to allow for ease of
assembly and the placement of electrical components. The main
bearing was then placed into its respective slot in the housing
base. Banana plugs, On/Off switches, and the LED light were
then placed into the machined holes in the housing. The wires
were then soldered together to allow for power output and the
turbine was completed.

A part was created using rapid prototyping but


failed because it was not the correct size that it
needed to be. The part was intended to be press
fit onto the motor gear and then onto the shaft of
the motor. Unfortunately, the gear fit with a
loose clearance and the hole intended for the
motor shaft was too small. Also, there is doubt
as to whether the plastic would be strong enough
to transfer the torque from the gear to the motor
shaft without breaking. Instead of using the
rapid prototype part, the small brass connecter
shaft was machined to the proper size and used
to attach the gear and the motor.

Figure 15 Little Windy


Disassembly is Compact

Little Windy

Figure 14 Comparison of Machined Shaft


Connector vs. Rapid Prototype

Figure 16 Little Windy Shaft Assembly

Team 2D

Page 16 of 48

6. Prototyping and Testing


6.1. Test Procedure and Plan
Team 2D is created a beta prototype to validate that the current design meets the given project
specifications. The prototype will have the same overall dimensions, electrical configuration, and
purchased parts as the mass production unit, but was constructed with acrylic sheet and a metal
shaft to estimate system performance. The prototyping plan can be found in table 6. In class, an
experiment was completed to validate that the chosen WT meets all design constraints. This
experiments is outlined in Appendix O with a complete test procedure and equipment needed.
Table 6 - Prototyping Plan for Little Windy Beta Prototype
Name of Prototype
Little Windy Beta
Purpose(s)
Validate WT ability to fit in packaging
Confirm power generation through selected motor and gear pair
Level of
Efficient blade design
Approximation
Correct material selections
Experimental Plan
Verify autonomous WT start-up and speed of blades (rpm)
Verify WT power production capabilities at various wind
speeds by measuring the voltage over a 10 ohm resistor and
ability to light a LED
Schedule
December 02 Beta Prototype Completed
December 04 Modified Beta Prototype Test

6.2. Test Results and Discussion of Results


The testing results from the Little Windy beta prototype test (table 6) were very disappointing to
team 2D. Little Windy only was able to produce 12.96 mW from a wind speed of 3.6 m/s. All
efficiency values were calculated using the analysis presented in Appendix J. Team 2D was
targeting a blade rotational speed of 400 rpm to maximize the output power expected for the
wind turbine. The peak rotational speed was determined using the alpha prototype test results
and we found the alpha prototype to be significantly lighter than the weight of the beta prototype.
This significantly impacted the actual performance, which was less than half than the target
efficiency and power values expected. The prototype was able to light up the LED light but not
consistently. This would not be acceptable performance for the unit production model. Although
this was a drawback in performance than what was expected, team 2D was excited that Little
Windy was the second most powerful vertical axis wind turbine.
Table 6 - Little Windy Beta Prototype Test Results for 3.6 m/s Wind Speed
Voltage [mV]
Blade Rotational
Output Power
Efficiency [%]
Speed [rpm]
[mW]
Predicted
200
44.2
3.43
Actual
360
182
12.96
1.01

Little Windy

Team 2D

Page 17 of 48

7. Conclusion and Recommendations


This experience helped team 2D grow a lot as engineers. Team 2D was relatively happy with the
success of the project with the second highest output voltage for a vertical axis wind turbine in
ME 340 Section 02. But team 2D does acknowledge that there is room for improving the Little
Windy design process, Little Windy only had an efficiency of 2%. Team 2D advises that future
design and construction should limit vibration of the turbine and increase the gear-ratio pair to
3:1. We believe our WT was able to produce enough torque to make this possible. Finally, the
following are a list of actions team 2D found successful:
Create a to-do list and a plan of activities you want to accomplish during a meeting or
work time - it will cause meetings to run more efficiently
Schedule weekly meetings and designated times to work on the project - even if present
milestones are already completed, it is better to be ahead of schedule
Listen to team members first and do not put down their ideas
Assign team roles and know what each members role is - this will result in maximum
productivity and efficiency
Team 2D found the following practices unsuccessful and would advise against:
All group members are assigned the same task in hopes of minimizing the time spent on
the task
The external search and WT design process was rushed due to the 15 week duration of
the project and deadlines set by the course
Instead:
Assign tasks during meetings so that all members are productive not all tasks need the
combined effort of all group members
Complete an extensive concept generation and selection process attention to scientific
principles and detail can lead to a better product design
Choose a motor and gear pair iteratively- test various combinations with a circuit
including an LED and a 10 ohm resistor
All in all, Little Windy is a unique and effective design for a table top WT with a projected NPV
of $3.64 million for the four-year production of 100,000 units a year. By focusing our design on
the needs of children aged 6 -12 and educators, we designed a simple, high performing, and safe
design that satisfies the community need. At a retail price of $75.00, we believe Little Windy
could be competitive against benchmarked designs because of its simplicity and interchangeable
blade structure. Interchangeable blades will allow educators and children alike to use both logic
and creativity to design their personal WT. The vertical axis wind turbine offers not only safety
through its compact design, but also versatility in varying wind speeds and directions. Educators
can feel comfortable using Little Windy to educate children and eliminate frustration during set
up or usage. Because this product addresses customer needs and allows children to be actively
involved in the learning process, Little Windy aimed to instill a lifelong knowledge within
students that science is indeed fun!

Little Windy

Team 2D

Page 18 of 48

8. References
3. Dorph, R., Shields, P., Tiffany-Morales, J., Hartry, A., McCaffrey, T. High hopesfew
opportunities: The status of elementary science education in California. Sacramento, CA:
The Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning at WestEd. 2011.
4. Chantrill, Christopher. "Government Spending Chart." US Education Spending. N.p., Feb.
2012. Web. 20 Oct. 2013.
5. Ulrich, Karl T, Eppinger,Steven D. (2012). Product design and development. New York:
McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
6. "Renewable Energy Add-On Set." LEGO Education. 18 Oct. 2013
<http://www.legoeducation.us/eng/product/renewable_energy_add_on_set/2101>.
7. "Savonius Wind Turbine V3." PicoTurbine International. 18 Oct. 2013
<http://www.picoturbine.com/savonius-wind-turbine-v3/>.
8. "Classroom Wind Turbine Kit." Classroom Wind Turbine Educational Kit. 18 Oct. 2013
<http://www.windtrap.co.uk/classroom-wind-turbine-kit-213-p.asp>.
9. "Wind Power: Renewable Energy Science Kit." Primary Science STEPs. 18 Oct. 2013
<http://www.primarysciencesteps.ie/index.php/shop/wind-power-renewable-energy-sciencekit/>.
10. Janiuk, Peter. Vertical Axis Wind Turbine with Self-Starting Capabilities Patent 8,550,786.
8 October 2013.
11. Betony, Joseph. Vertical Axis Wind Turbine with Twisted Blade or Auxiliary Blade.
Patent 8,468,665 25 June 2013.
12. Fite, David. Vertical Axis Turbine For Capturing the Force of Moving Gasses or Liquids
and a Method for its Use Patent 8,419,367. 16 April 2013.
13. Bernard Wesby, Philip. Vertical Axis Wind Turbine Patent D679,246. 2 April 2013.
14. "Jameco Part No. 238473." Jamesco Electronics. N.p., 2002. Web. 20 Oct. 2013.
<http://www.jameco.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?search_type=jamecoall
>.
15. "Home." ISO 8124-1:2012. N.p., 2012. Web. 22 Nov. 2013.
16. "88/378/EEC." EUR-Lex. N.p., 3 May 1998. Web. 22 Nov. 2013.

Little Windy

Team 2D

Page 19 of 48

9. Appendices
Appendix A Initial Theoretical Analysis
A wind turbine will fall into either of two general classes depending on how it spins: horizontal
axis wind turbine (HAWT) and vertical axis wind turbine (VAWT). In the real word, HAWT
may be selected instead of VAWT because the vertical turbine blades cannot be easily elevated
high into the air where the best winds are found. However, for our product, the wind speed is
constant from a fan and the VAWT gives the advantage of operating at varying wind speeds and
directions. The key advantage of VAWT in our analysis is it will have a larger swept area than
HAWT for the same size wind turbine. The equation for the wind turbine power is described
below:

Figure A.1 Wind Turbine Power Analysis


When the wind speed is not the essential factor, the swept area dominates the output power.
Therefore, the VAWT will have higher efficiency than the HAWT. Figure A.2 describes the
power generation method and major components of a VAWT.

http://www.hnsa.org/
http://www. reuk.co.uk/

http://www.galco.com/

Figure A.2 Diagram of Wind Turbine Major Components and Functions

Little Windy

Team 2D

Page 20 of 48

Appendix B - Project Management

Figure B.1 Team 2D Gannt Chart Example (Updated 11/22)


Little Windy

Team 2D

Page 21 of 48

Table B.1 Team 2D Management Structure


Team Member
Kelsa Benensky

Leadership Role
Project Management

Taylor Berrian

Technical Design

Stephen Pitterle

Project Management

Feng Qin

Technical Design

Relevant Experience
Design Intern
Undergraduate Research
Assistant
Product Development Intern
Assembly of God (Chi Alpha)
Student Leader
Assistant Engineering Intern

Strengths
Technical Writing
Critical Thinking
CAD
Hands on Assemby
CAD
Technical Writing
Theoretical Analysis
Theoretical Analysis
CAD

Weaknesses
Hands on Assembly and
Machining
Technical Writing

CAD

Technical Writing

Kelsa has a comprehensive experience as a designer and innovative thinker. She works part time as a design intern at Schuf Fetterolf
and a research assistant at Penn State. As a designer, Kelsa was responsible for timely design completion of orders up to $75,000,
material allocation for expedited job orders, and the early implementation of a new manufactured parts tracking system. As an
undergraduate researcher under Dr. Ray, Kelsa gained skills including time management and hands-on experimental work.
Taylor has several skills that he adds to the team. Foremost, he has had experience in the field of product development. In the summer
of 2012, he worked for the sporting goods company Rawlings as a product development intern for their baseball glove line. In
addition, he is comfortable using AutoCAD and SolidWorks. Taylor has used AutoCAD for his job at Penn State the last two years.
This involved making maps of the branch campuses and updating any site work. One weakness, he stated, was his writing skills and
report writing.
As a prominent leader in the Assembly of God Chi Alpha student organization, Stephen has experience facilitating event planning and
group discussion. This experience is essential to the project management aspect of this project. As an experienced musician Stephen
adds creativity and innovation to the group and is often thinking of alternative approaches to problems. Through volunteer work with
local summer camps, Stephen has firsthand experience with the target age range for this project allowing him to accurately assess the
educational aspects of design.
Feng studied in China before he came to Penn State. Therefore, he can provide the team with unique ideas and think about problems
from different aspects. Feng has worked as an intern this summer in China as an assistant engineer. His duty was to find out the
mistakes made by other engineers in proposals or drawings and correct them. This experience allows Feng to perform work with full
patience and has unlimited energy.

Little Windy

Team 2D

Page 22 of 48

Appendix C Identifying Customer Needs

ME 340 Team 2D Customer Needs Questionnaire


Evaluating Previous Knowledge
1.
2.
3.
4.

What do you know about windmills? Can you describe how a windmill works?
What do windmills do?
Where have you seen windmills?
Describe the parts of a windmill.

Evaluating Coustomer needs


1. Pick the one that looks easiest to make. Why does this look easiest to make?

http://p.globalsources.com/IMAGES/PDT/B1039749725/Educational-Solar-Windmill-Kit.jpg

http://www.dhgate.com/product/6-in-1-solar-power-kits-educational-diy-toy/116202603.html

If you had a windmill kit


1. How many parts would you expect it to have? Would it be better with fewer parts?
2. How long would you expect it to take to assemble the kit? What would be an ideal time?
3. How long would you be entertained be the windmill? If it lit up? Made noises?

Little Windy

Team 2D

Page 23 of 48

4. Rank the following in increasing order corresponding to the one that you like best. Place one
word to describes each product next to your number.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/

http://prairiewindtoys.com/

http://www.super-science-fair-projects.com/

http://www.robotstorehk.com/

Table C.1 Survey Recipients


Name

Age

Relavant Occupation

Leigh Pitterle

Adult

Sunday School teacher of students age 5-12

Grace Pitterle

11

School Age Student

Lorraine Benensky

Adult

Preschool Aid age 3 - 5

Andrew J. Benensky

13

School Age Student

Jojo Benensky

School Age Student

Little Windy

Team 2D

Page 24 of 48

Little Windy

width

weighs

height

Understood by
children

number of uses
before maitenence
required

number of
manufactured parts

suitable for

Parts capable of
withstand a fall of

Output

efficiency

Operating Speed

cost

number of parts

quantity of lights

number of people
engaged

colors of lights

number of sounds it
can make

number of colors

"6-12"

>1

>50

6+

Ag
e

0.75

<10 <100 0-20 >3

Ag
e

>3 5

f t.

>2

<12 <10 <5

ut

>500 >2

Team 2D

Page 25 of 48

lb

in
.

in
.

Po
Pi
n/

m
ph

nd
s

<90

se
co

Un
its

Easy to put together


Reliable
Looks modern
Noise
Lights
Team activity
Should teach the basic parts of a windmill
Low cost
Performance
Efficient
Able to be assembled and disassembled
Durable
Reliable
Safety
At least 1 manufactured part
Low maintenance
Educational
Size
Weight
Target Values

number of uses
before failure

assembly time

Table C.2 QFD Chart

Appendix D Benchmarking
Table D.1 Needs-Metrics Chart and Benchmarking Analysis
Customer Needs
Easy to assemble
Simple Design
Low Cost
Durable
Durable
Low Maintenance
Low Maintenance
Performance
Performance
Educational Value
Educational Value
Educational Value
Safety
Number of parts
Needs to operate at
Reasonable size

Metric

Units

Target Spec

Assembly time
seconds
Number of parts
#
Cost
$
Number of uses before failure
#
Strength of materials
Number of uses before maintenance
#
Time to make a repair
minutes
Output Voltage
V out/V possible
Output Efficiency
Time students are engaged
Number of people engaged
Number of concepts learned
Suitable for an age range
Number of manufactured parts
Operating Speed
Fits in container provided

Pin/Pout
minutes
#
#
years
#
mph

<90
<10
<100
>100
>25
<5
0.9
0.75
>10
>4
>3
6+
1
20

Our Design
LEGO
Value of Metric percieved satisfaction of needs Value of Metric percieved satisfaction of needs
<90
X-X-X-X-X
300
X-X-X
<10
X-X-X
>4
X-X-X-X-X
<100
X-X-X-X-X
$99
X-X-X
>100
X-X-X
200
X-X-X-X-X
X-X-X-X
LEGOs
X-X-X-X-X
>25
X-X-X
50
X-X-X
<5
X-X-X
2
X-X-X
0.9
X-X-X-X-X
>2
X-X-X-X-X
0.75
>10
>4
>3
6+
1
20

X-X-X-X-X
X-X-X-X
X-X-X-X
X-X-X-X
X-X-X-X
X-X-X-X-X
X-X-X-X-X
X-X-X-X-X

15
4
3
8+
-

X
X-X-X-X-X
X-X-X-X-X
X-X-X-X-X
X-X-X-X
X-X-X

Table D.2 - Benchmarking Analysis (continued)


Pico
Ten-high
Value of Metric percieved satisfaction Value of Metric percieved satisfaction
300
X-X-X
600
X-X-X
3
X-X-X-X-X
>4
X-X-X
$50
X-X-X-X-X
$295
X
2000
X-X-X-X
2000
X-X-X-X-X
X-X-X-X
X-X-X-X-X
2000
X-X-X
2000
X-X-X
5
X-X-X
60
X
X
12 V
X-X-X-X-X
10
4
3
6 to 21
3
varies

X
X-X
X-X-X
X-X-X
X-X-X-X
X-X-X-X-X
X-X-X-X
X-X-X

5
3
>3
12+
>4
9 to 44

Little Windy

X-X-X-X-X
X-X
X-X-X
X-X-X
X-X-X
X-X-X-X
X-X-X-X-X
X

Wind Trap
Value of Metric
percieved satisfaction
300
X-X-X
>5
X-X-X-X
$200
X-X-X
200
X-X-X-X
X-X-X-X
50
X-X-X
5
X-X-X-X-X
1.5 to 6
X-X-X-X-X
varies based on gears
>15
4
>3
Adult supervision required
15 to 20

Team 2D

X-X-X-X-X
X-X-X-X-X
X-X-X-X
X-X-X-X
X-X-X
X-X-X-X
X-X-X-X

Primary Science STEPS


Value of Metric
percieved satisfaction
20 minutes
X
50+
X
$50
X-X-X-X-X
150
X-X-X
Kinex
X-X-X-X
50
X-X-X
10
X-X-X-X-X
X-X-X
varies based on gears
>20
4
>3
8+
-

Page 26 of 48

X-X-X-X-X
X-X-X-X-X
X-X-X-X-X
X-X-X-X-X
X-X-X-X
X-X-X
X-X-X-X

Appendix E Patent Search


Patent 1 Extended Blades

Little Windy

Team 2D

Page 27 of 48

Patent 2 Vertically Extended Sails

Little Windy

Team 2D

Page 28 of 48

Patent 3 Pivoting Arc Blades

Little Windy

Team 2D

Page 29 of 48

Patent 4 Dual Bladed

Little Windy

Team 2D

Page 30 of 48

Appendix F Concept Generation


Concept 1 Multi Bladed Vertical
This is a vertical axis turbine design with
multiple blades to show that increased surface
area of the blades leads to an increase in
power. Also there is no need to correct for
wind direction with this design.
Pros: Efficient, High Power, Educational
Cons: High Manufacturing Cost

Concept 2 Standard Three Blade


This is a more standard turbine design
that was created to be very efficient and
explain the concepts of wind power
using a familiar shape that can be easily
recognized by students.
Pros: Efficient
Cons: Not Innovative, Not Interactive

Concept 3 Interchangeable Blades


This design is intended to be a more
educational design with more student
interaction. The number of turbine blades
used can be varied from one blade up to 5
blades to show the change in performance
associated with each type of turbine.
Pros: Interactive, Educational
Cons: Many Parts, High Manufacturing
Cost

Little Windy

Team 2D

Page 31 of 48

Concept 4 Extended Blade Vertical


This design has 3 blades on a vertical axis with
each blade attached to the axis by extension
arms. The purpose of this design is to create the
most torque possible with the given surface area
of the wing due to the larger moment arm of each
blade.
Pros: Efficient, Educational, Low Manufacturing
Cost
Cons: Not Interactive

Concept 5 Staggered Blade Vertical


This design has blades that are spaced at
varied distances from the central axis. The
purpose of this feature is so that the blades
do not interfere with each other and that
each blade will receive the maximum
amount of energy possible from the wind
source.
Pros: Captures Maximum Energy
Cons: High Manufacturing Cost, Not
Interactive

Concept 6 Alternative Blades Vertical


This design uses an alternative blade structure
in order to teach students about Vertical Axis
Wind Turbines. The alternative blade design is
intended to demonstrate that wind power can
be harnessed in many different ways.
Pros: Alternative Blade Design
Cons: Low Expected Power, High
Manufacturing Cost, Not Interactive

Little Windy

Team 2D

Page 32 of 48

Appendix G Concept Selection


Table G.1 Concept Screening Matrix

Concept
Selection Criteria
Easy to assemble
Assembly time
Simple Design
Number of parts
Low Cost
Cost
Durable
Number of uses before failure
Durable
Strength of materials
Low Maintenance Number of uses before maintenance
Low Maintenance
Time to make a repair
Performance
Output Voltage
Performance
Output Efficiency
Educational Value
Time students are engaged
Educational Value
Number of people engaged
Educational Value
Number of concepts learned
Safety
Suitable for an age range
Number of parts
Number of manufactured parts
Needs to operate at
Operating Speed
Reasonable size
Fits in container provided
Sum +'s
Sum -'s
Sum 0's
Net Score
Rank
Continue?

Little Windy

0
0
+
0
0
+
+
0
0
0
0
0
+
0
4
2
10
2
1
Y

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
16
0
3
Y

0
0
0
0
0
+
+
+
0
+
+
0
5
4
7
1
2
Y

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
+
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
14
0
3
Y

0
0
0
0
+
0
0
+
0
+
0
3
5
8
-2
5
N

+
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
5
10
-4
6
N

Team 2D

Page 33 of 48

Table G.2 Analytical Heuristic Process (AHP) Chart for Weighting Criteria

1
1. Assembly time
2. Number of parts
1/3
3. Cost
5
4. Number of uses before failure
1
5. Strength of materials
1/3
6. Number of uses before maintenance 1/2
7. Time to make a repair
1/3
8. Output Voltage
1
9. Output Efficiency
1
10. Time students are engaged
1/2
11. Number of people engaged
1/4
12. Number of concepts learned
1/2
13. Suitable for an age range
1/3
14. Number of manufactured parts
1/3
15. Operating Speed
4
16. Fits in container provided
3

2
3
5
3
2
3
1
5
5
2
2
2
1
1
4
3

3
4
1/5 1
1/5 1/3
4
1/4
1/4 1/2
1/3 1
1/5 1/2
1
4
1
4
1/3 1
1/4 1/2
1/3 1
1/3 1/2
1/5 1/3
1/2 3
1
3

5
3
1/2
4
2
2
1
5
5
3
2
2
3
1
5
3

6
2
1/3
3
1
1/2
1
4
4
2
1
1
2
1
5
4

7
3
1
5
2
1
1
3
3
2
1
1
1
3
5
4

8
9
1
1
1/5 1/5
1
1
1/4 1/4
1/5 1/5
1/4 1/4
1/3 1/3
1
1
1/4 1/4
1/5 1/5
1/4 1/4
1/5 1/5
1/3 1/3
1
1
1/2 1/2

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
2
4
2
3
3
1/4
1/3
1/2
1/2
1/2 1
1
1/4
1/3
3
4
3
3
5
2
1
1
2
1
2
3
1/3
1/3
1/3
1/2
1/2
1/3 1
1/5
1/3
1/2 1
1
1/2 1
1/5
1/4
1/2 1
1
1
1/3
1/5
1/4
4
5
4
5
3
1
2
4
5
4
5
3
1
2
2
1
2
1/3
1/5
1/4
1/2
1/2
1/2
1/3
1/5
1/4
1
2
1
1/3
1/5
1/4
1/2 2
1
1/2
1/5
1/4
3
3
3
2
1/3 1
5
5
5
5
3
3
4
4
4
4
1
1/3

Total
28.78
7.18
49.00
19.42
8.18
12.78
8.98
48.00
48.00
17.12
9.68
13.12
13.02
19.87
54.50
39.33

Note: Based on Scale of Relative Importance: 1=Equal, 2=Slightly Important, 3=Moderately Important, 4=Very Important,
5=Most Important

Little Windy

Team 2D

Page 34 of 48

Weight
0.07
0.02
0.12
0.05
0.02
0.03
0.02
0.12
0.12
0.04
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.05
0.14
0.10

Table G.3 Concept Scoring Matrix

1 (vertical axis)
2 (horizontal axis) (REF) 3 (interchangable blades) 4 (3 blade vertical)
Selection Criteria
Weights Rating Weighted Score Rating Weighted Score Rating Weighted Score RatingWeighted Score
Easy to assemble
Assembly time
0.073
4
0.29
3
0.22
1
0.07
2
0.15
Simple Design
Number of parts
0.018
4
0.07
3
0.05
2
0.04
2
0.04
Low Cost
Cost
0.123
2
0.25
3
0.37
2
0.25
3
0.37
Durable
Number of uses before failure
0.049
4
0.20
3
0.15
3
0.15
3
0.15
Durable
Strength of materials
0.021
3
0.06
3
0.06
2
0.04
3
0.06
Low Maintenance Number of uses before maintenance 0.032
4
0.13
3
0.10
3
0.10
4
0.13
Low Maintenance
Time to make a repair
0.023
2
0.05
3
0.07
5
0.11
2
0.05
Performance
Output Voltage
0.121
4
0.48
3
0.36
4
0.48
3
0.36
Performance
Output Efficiency
0.121
4
0.48
3
0.36
4
0.48
2
0.24
Educational Value
Time students are engaged
0.043
2
0.09
3
0.13
4
0.17
3
0.13
Educational Value
Number of people engaged
0.024
2
0.05
3
0.07
4
0.10
2
0.05
Educational Value
Number of concepts learned
0.033
2
0.07
3
0.10
3
0.10
3
0.10
Safety
Suitable for an age range
0.033
3
0.10
3
0.10
3
0.10
3
0.10
Number of parts
Number of manufactured parts
0.050
3
0.15
3
0.15
5
0.25
4
0.20
Needs to operate at
Operating Speed
0.137
5
0.69
3
0.41
3
0.41
4
0.55
Reasonable size
Fits in container provided
0.099
3
0.30
3
0.30
3
0.30
3
0.30
Total Score
Rank
Continue?

3.44
1
Develop

3.00
3
N

3.15
2
Usable Concept

2.96
4
N

Note: Based on Scale of Relative Importance: 1=Much Less Satisfying, 2=Less Satisfying, 3=Equally Satisfying, 4= More Satisfying,
5=Much More Satisfying

Little Windy

Team 2D

Page 35 of 48

Appendix H Preliminary Economic Analysis


Part
Housing/Structure
Blades (4)
Gears (2)
DC Motor (Jameco Part No. 238473)
Wiring
Custom Parts
Total Production Cost: $40.49

Expected Pricing
$8.00
$2.00/each
$4.00/each
$3.49
$5.00
$8.00/in3

Vendor
Learning Factory
PVC Piping-Home Depot
ME 340
Jameco
Learning Factory
Learning Factory
Retail Price: $50.00

Appendix I Completed Testing Data


The torque was determined using the experimental set up described in Section 6.2. and can be
calculated using Eq. I.1, where W is the weight tested and r is the shaft radius.:
(Eq. I.1)
The shaft speed was determined using Eq. I.2:
(Eq. I.2)
Where l is the length of the distance weight tested has travelled, r is the shaft radius, and t is the
total time elapsed per run.
Table I.1 - Average Values from Alpha Prototype Torque Tests
Pull
Test Weight Shaft Dia Distance Time
Shaft Speed
Torque
Mech. Power
#
(g)
(mm)
(m)
(sec)
(RPM)
(mN-m)
(Watts)
1
5
18.19
0.83
6.57
241.75
0.446
0.0113
2
14.9
18.19
0.79
7.91
190.29
1.329
0.0265
3
25.9
18.19
0.83
7.49
212.03
2.310
0.0513
4
38.3
18.19
0.83
10.50
151.12
3.417
0.0540
5
45.9
18.19
0.83
15.19
104.52
4.094
0.0448
6
51.8
18.19
0.83
15.98
99.32
4.621
0.0480
Stall
65
18.19
N/A
N/A
0
5.798
N/A
Table I.2 Expected Torque from Various Gear Ratios
4:3
3:2
2:1
3:1
4:1
Torque
Speed Torque
Speed Torque
Speed Torque
Speed Torque
Speed
(mN m) (RPM) (mN m) (RPM) (mN m) (RPM) (mN m) (RPM) (mN m) (RPM)
0.335 322.33
0.297 362.63
0.223 483.50
0.1487 725.25
0.112 967.00
0.997 253.72
0.886 285.44
0.665 380.59
0.4430 570.88
0.332 761.17
1.733 282.70
1.540 318.04
1.155 424.05
0.7701 636.08
0.578 848.11
2.562 201.50
2.278 226.68
1.708 302.25
1.1388 453.37
0.854 604.49
3.071 139.36
2.730 156.78
2.047 209.03
1.3648 313.55
1.024 418.07
3.466 132.42
3.081 148.98
2.310 198.64
1.5403 297.95
1.155 397.27
4.349
0 3.865519
0 2.899139
0 1.93276
0 1.44957
0
Little Windy

Team 2D

Page 36 of 48

Figure I.1 Expected Torque v. Speed for Gear Ratios of Interest


Table I.3 Expected Torque from Jameco Motor No. 238473
Shaft
Speed
(RPM)
159
163
221
222
304
306
309
374

Little Windy

Torque
(mN-m)
0.75
0.75
0.45
0.45
1.03
1.03
1.03
0.82

Shaft
Speed
(RPM)
376
430
431
431
433
437
439
441

Torque
(mN-m)
0.82
1.27
1.30
1.30
1.30
1.27
1.30
1.27

Shaft
Speed
(RPM)
673
684
688
705
728
731
914
914

Team 2D

Torque
(mN-m)
1.81
1.83
1.81
1.83
1.81
1.81
2.54
2.54

Shaft
Speed
(RPM)
935
935
944
955
1021
1035
1046

Torque
(mN-m)
2.54
2.54
2.43
2.43
2.68
2.68
2.68

Page 37 of 48

Appendix J Final Theoretical Analysis


Swept area is the cross sectional area of the turbine that the air sees in its path. Swept area can be
calculated by multiplying the wind turbine rotor diameter by the blade length (Eq. 1).
For our wind turbine the radial distance the blade extends is equal to 4.38 in. and the length of
the blade is 8 in.:
(
)(
)
From the analysis presented in Appendix A, the available power from the wind to the turbine is
directly related to the velocity of the wind (3.9 m/s), the swept area (70.0 in2), and the density of
the air (1.2205 kg/m3) (Eq. 2):

)(

)(

)(

The power the turbine actually takes from wind is calculated using the power coefficient. The
power coefficient (also known as efficiency) is the ratio of captured mechanical power by blades
and the available power of the wind (Eq.3):
(Eq. 5)

Little Windy

Team 2D

Page 38 of 48

Appendix K Preliminary Mass Production Unit Processes

Figure K.1 Material and Component Selection Process for Mass Production Unit

Figure K.2 - Fabrication Process for Mass Production Unit

Little Windy

Team 2D

Page 39 of 48

Appendix L Detailed Drawings

Figure L.1 Little Windy Final Assembly Exploded View

Little Windy

Team 2D

Page 40 of 48

Figure L.2 Little Windy Blade Detail

Figure L.3 Little Windy Base Detail

Little Windy

Team 2D

Page 41 of 48

Figure L.4 Little Windy Housing Lid Detail

Figure L.5 Little Windy End Cap Detail

Little Windy

Team 2D

Page 42 of 48

Figure L.6 Little Windy Alternative End Cap Detail

Little Windy

Team 2D

Page 43 of 48

Appendix M Unit Price Analysis


Table M.1 Detailed BOM1
Component

Part
No.

Purchased
Material
Cost

Manufacturing
Process

Assembly
(Labor)

Total Unit
Variable
Cost

Tooling
Costs ($K)

Tooling
Lifetime
(K units)

Total
Unit
Fixed
Cost

Total
Unit
Cost

Blade
(x3)

$0.36

Injection
Mold

$2.50

$2.86

$50.00

500

$0.10

$2.96

End Cap
(x2)

$1.23

Injection
Mold

$5.00

$6.23

$50.00

500

$0.10

$6.33

Shaft

$0.04

Injection
Mold

$3.00

$3.04

$50.00

500

$0.10

$3.14

Housing
Base

$2.15

Injection
Mold

$7.00

$9.15

$50.00

500

$0.10

$9.25

Motor

$3.49

Purchased

$3.00

$6.49

$6.49

Motor
Coupling

$0.05

Injection
Mold

$6.00

$6.05

$6.05

Shaft
Gear

$2.15

Purchased

$3.00

$5.15

$5.15

Motor
Gear

$2.07

Purchased

$3.00

$5.07

$5.07

On/Off
Switch
(2)

$2.98

Purchased

$1.00

$2.49

$2.49

LED

10

$1.30

Purchased

$1.00

$2.30

$2.30

Banana
Plugs

11

$0.72

Purchased

$1.00

$1.72

Bearing
(2)

12

$8.78

Purchased

$2.60

$6.99

Housing
Lid

13

Total
Direct
Costs

Costs For Housing Lid included in Housing Base Calculations

$18.72

$37.10

$55.82

Total
Cost
1

$6.99

$200.00

$0.40

$63.82

See Table M.2. for a Listing of All Purchased Parts

Little Windy

Team 2D

Page 44 of 48

Table M.2 -Components for Mass Production


Part
12 V DC Motor
On/Off Switch
Shaft Gear (48 tooth)
Motor Gear (24 tooth)
Open 1/4" Ball Bearing
Banana Plugs
LED

Little Windy

Manufacturer
Mabuchi Motor Co.
Jameco Valuepro
SDP/SI
SDP/SI
Nice Bearings
Johnson/Emerson
NTE Electronics

Team 2D

Unit Price
$3.49
$1.49
$2.15
$2.07
$4.39
$0.72
$0.68

Quantity
1
1
1
1
2
1
1

Page 45 of 48

Appendix N Net Present Value


Table N.1 Net Present Value Years 1 and 2
Year 1
(values in dollars)

Q1

Development cost
Ramp-up cost
Marketing & support cost
Production cost
Production volume
Unit production cost
Sales revenue
Sales volume
Unit price
Period Cash Flow
PV, r = 10%

Little Windy

Q2

-150,000
-50,000
-10,000
-1,595,500
25,000
-63.82
1,875,000
25,000
75
119,511
119,511

Year 2

Q3

Q4

-50,000
-25,000
0
-15,000
-10,000
0
-2,500
-2,500
-2,500
1,595,500 1,595,500 1,595,500
25,000
25,000
25,000
-63.82
-63.82
-63.82
1,875,000 1,875,000 1,875,000
25,000
25,000
25,000
75
75
75
262,011
255,621

292,011
277,940

327,011
303,662

Team 2D

Q1

Q2
0

-2,500
-1,595,500
25,000
-63.82
1,875,000
25,000
75
327,011
296,256

Q3
0

Q4
0

-2,500
-2,500
-2,500
1,595,500 1,595,500 1,595,500
25,000
25,000
25,000
-63.82
-63.82
-63.82
1,875,000 1,875,000 1,875,000
25,000
25,000
25,000
75
75
75
277,000
244,828

277,000
238,856

Page 46 of 48

277,000
233,030

Table N.2 Net Present Value Years 3 and 4


Year 3
(values in dollars)

Q1

Development cost
Ramp-up cost
Marketing & support cost
Production cost
Production volume
Unit production cost
Sales revenue
Sales volume
Unit price
Period Cash Flow
PV, r = 10%

Q2
0

-2,500
-1,595,500
25,000
-63.82
1,875,000
25,000
75
277,000
227,347

Year 4

Q3
0

Q4

Q2

-2,500
-2,500
-2,500
1,595,500 1,595,500 1,595,500
25,000
25,000
25,000
-63.82
-63.82
-63.82
1,875,000 1,875,000 1,875,000
25,000
25,000
25,000
75
75
75

-2,500
-1,595,500

277,000
221,802

Q1

277,000
216,392

277,000
211,114

25,000
-63.82
1,875,000
25,000
75
277,000
205,965

Q3
0

Team 2D

-2,500
-2,500
-2,500
1,595,500 1,595,500 1,595,500
25,000
25,000
25,000
-63.82
-63.82
-63.82
1,875,000 1,875,000 1,875,000
25,000
25,000
25,000
75
75
75
277,000
200,941

277,000
196,040

Table N.3 Total Project NPV


Projected NVP for 4
$3,640,565
Years

Little Windy

Q4

Page 47 of 48

277,000
191,259

Appendix O Test Procedure


Experimental Objective
The objective of this experiment is to determine the performance of our wind turbine in terms of
power output for varying wind speeds (2 4 m/s) and to confirm that the performance of our
Beta Prototype meets the given design constraints. Through this experiment, three major
parameters will be addressed:
Verification of wind autonomous turbine startup
Verification of wind turbine performance under a 10 ohm load
Determination of power output and system efficiency for wind speeds of 2 4 m/s

Equipment
This experiment requires measurements of motor output voltage and shaft speed. In experimental
procedure A, WT performance will be verified for varying direction of the wind source with
respect to the wind turbine. In experimental procedure B, WT performance will be determined
and verified for the chosen motor and gear pair by measuring the voltage across a 10 ohm
resistor. The experiment will be performed with the following equipment:

Wind Turbine Assembly


10 Ohm Resistor
Box Fan (20 x 20)
Digital Multimeter

Meter Stick (and/or Ruler)


Phototachnometer
Reflective Tape

Experimental Procedure
1. Place box fan in a safe secure space within an area of at least 9 ft2 of room for the
experiment
2. Place the WT assembly 3 feet from the box fan and ensure a secure connection of the
10 ohm resistor to the motor. Connect the digital multimeter in series (fig. O.1) with
the 10 ohm resistor. Attach reflective tape to a selected wind turbine blade.
3. Turn on the fan and record if the WT is absle to start up autonomously
4. Once the WT has reached a steady state, record the voltage across the 10 ohm resistor
using the digital multimeter.
5. Using the phototachnometer, determine the speed of the turbine (rpm) using the
reflective tape as reference.
6. Make sure that measurements are accurate and turn off fan after measurements are
taken.
Digital Multimeter

Motor

Resistor

Figure O.1 - Part A Experimental Set Up

Little Windy

Team 2D

Page 48 of 48

You might also like