Team Barley Busters

Team Members:Mike Hayes, ME

Jeremy Weber, MEArie Blom, ME

Adam Burk, BAEJacob Gray, BAE

Advisor: Dr. Tom Hess

Opportunity Statement

Our client desires an apparatus to test hull adherence of various strains of barely and

receive quantitative results. The testing device must be self-cleaning, process ten samples per

hour, catch all test material, minimize noise, and provide repeatable results. The device must

also conform to all OSHA and company standards for safety.

Original Apparatus

Problems Encountered with Original Apparatus

• Noise from compressed air/ inconvenient

• Not self-cleaning

• Poorly repeatable results

• Slow speed to achieve desired hull removal

Specifications• Noise

< 50 dB• Self Cleaning

Minimal cleaning needed after testing• Removal of Hull

Within 10% accuracy of 90% of tests• Collection of Sample

99% recovery of all material tested• Size

< 50 lbs and 8 cubic feet• Speed

Must be able to run at least 10 samples 50-250 grams per hour• Separation

>95% of removed hull still in tact after testing• Safety

Follow all safety standards. Enclose moving parts.

Preliminary Designs ConsideredAlternative Design 1: Cement Mixer Cement mixer style

-rotating drums

Solid drum to catch hull and filter down

Abrasive inner drum with mixing fins

Solid barley trap

Preliminary Designs (cont.)

To hull trap and vacuum

Abrasive disk

Alternative Design 2: Coffee Grinder

Head ThresherInitial Considerations

• Western Wheat Quality Laboratory, Pullman, Washington

• Used for cleaning wheat

• Uses nylon impellers and woven cloth

• Sold by Precision Machine Co., Inc. Lincoln, NE

Testing Procedure

• Set timer to 15 or 30 seconds• Turn on full power while mechanism is closed

by users hand and a gate• When time ends open gate and remove hand

slowly• When most of the hull is removed with

aspirator, remove remaining barely and strain using a 300 цm sieve.

9

Baseline Testing and Rating

Sample Initial Weight (g) End Weight (g) Hull Removed (g)1 50 46.31 3.692 50 46.55 3.453 49.99 46.7 3.294 49.99 46.5 3.495 50.02 46.56 3.466 50 46.84 3.167 50.01 46.61 3.48 50 47 39 50.01 46.66 3.35

10 50.02 46.72 3.3Average Hull Removed = 3.359gStandard Deviation = .18965 g

Standard Deviation from testing at WSU: 0.14925 g

Rating:• Noise• Self Cleaning• Hull Removal• Collection of end results• Size of apparatus• Time it took to run a test• Ability to separate kernel from hull• Safety

Initial Testing

Hull Being Removed (Test Results)

Specifications

NoiseSelf

CleaningHull

RemovalCollection Size Speed Separation Safety

Maintenance Ease

Original Machine

1 0 2 3 5 1 2 3 3

Improving Head

Thrasher3 4 5 4 3 5 2 3 4

Original Apparatus Total: 20

Head Thrasher Total: 33

Decision Matrix

Final Design Solution Modifications

Solid Model

Servo Motors

Servo Stands

Funnel

Barley Stopper

Funnel and Stopper (Front View)

Servo Attachment

Servo Attachment

Funnel and Servos (Top View)

New Nozzle

Servo Motor

Barley Stopper

Nozzle Attachment

Air Flow Analysis

Nozzle Attachment

Problems before nozzle:

- Full kernels collected in with hull sample

- Not enough circulation in bottom of cylinder

Air Flow AnalysisWithout Insert With Insert

Slower Velocity than without insert

Air Flow AnalysisWithout Insert With Insert

Where Barley would be ‘stuck’

Dust Bag

Sieve

Sieve and Dust Bag

Testing with New Sievebarley testing with new sieve: 2/28/2011 Hull sample

Sample barley weight before barley weight after weight of hull removed hull weight Weight difference1 50.01 46.45 3.56 3.13 0.432 50.01 46.32 3.69 3.08 0.613 50.01 46.29 3.72 3.22 0.504 50.01 46.56 3.45 2.96 0.495 50.01 46.68 3.33 2.91 0.426 50.01 46.45 3.56 3.10 0.467 50.01 46.40 3.61 3.13 0.488 50.01 46.85 3.16 2.67 0.499 50.01 46.36 3.65 3.21 0.44

10 50.01 46.54 3.47 3.05 0.42

max. weight removed 3.72min weight removed 3.16avg. weight removed 3.52std. deviation 0.1733 Recovery = 99%

Electronics Case

Input and Display

Electrical Components

Electronic Configuration

Cost EstimateHead Thresher - $750.00

Microcontroller - $40.00

Op-Amps - $15.00

Resistors - $10.00

Wire - $10.00

Servos - $6.00

Springs - $2.00

New Packaging - $50.00

Aspirator Modification - $50.00

Sieve Install - $100.00

Total: $983.00

Cost Estimate: < $1250.00

Head Thresher - $821.50

Sieve - $211.98

Electronics - $116.65

Head Thresher parts - $9.75

Microcontroller - $56.10

Funnel - $26.85

Switches - $63.81

Servos - $26.41

Relay Switch - $88.00

Actual Cost $1,421.05

Predicted Costs Actual Costs

Final Test Results

Run Time Sample # Initial Final Loss Hull Wgt Difference2 Seconds 1 50.01 48.21 1.8 1.57 0.23 Std. Dev= 0.034928

2 50 48.26 1.74 1.54 0.2 Average Difference= 0.182 3 50.01 48.23 1.78 1.62 0.16 % Recovered= 99.99636 4 50.01 48.25 1.76 1.6 0.16 Average Removed= 1.782 5 50.01 48.18 1.83 1.67 0.16

Run Time Sample # Initial Final Loss Hull Wgt Difference15 Seconds 1 50 46.03 3.97 3.37 0.6 Std. Dev= 0.051478

2 50 46.06 3.94 3.36 0.58 Average Difference= 0.612 3 50 46.05 3.95 3.37 0.58 % Recovered= 99.98776 4 50.01 45.97 4.04 3.41 0.63 Average Removed= 3.99 5 50 45.95 4.05 3.38 0.67

DFMEADesign Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (DFMEA)

Item and Function

Potential Failure Mode (s)

Potential Effect(s) ofFailure

SEV

Potential Cause(s) of failure

Occur

Current Design Controls

Detect

RPN

Recommended Actions

De-hull Paddles break No de-hulling 2 -Weak materials

1 -Select material designed for tougher barley

3 6

-Poor construction -ensure that construction is done properly

Motor fails No de-hulling 5 Exceeded lifetime/speed

1 -test material to x-amount of cycles

Separation Motor fails Possibly no

suction5 -Exceeds life

expectancy of motor1

Loss of controls Too much/not enough suction

4 -Burn/ break microcontroller

2

Collection Spilling

materialFaulty results 1 -Bad

seal/construction2 -ensure that all

seals are done properly and construction is adequate

Questions?Recommendations?