Project Importance: Revision History: Project Charter

Transcription

1 Page 1/8 Project Title: CSU Brewery Automation Date: 9/16/2016 Team Members: Mechanical Engineers Julia Tucker and Andrew Ross Chemical and Biological Engineers Briana Chamberlain and Keaton Sloan Computer Engineer Dustin Tauxe Independent Study Electrical Engineer: Nicolas Wells Supervising Professors: Anthony Maciejewski Department Head, Electrical and Computer Engineering Olivera Notaros Senior Design Head Industry Sponsor: Dan Malyszko Director of Operations at Malisko Engineering : Jeffrey Callaway Associate Director of Fermentation Science and Technology Project Summary: The Colorado State University Fermentation Science and Technology Department, along with Malisko Engineering, seeks to utilize a team of undergraduate engineering students to design and commission the department s brewing operations in the Lory Student Center and the Gifford Building. The initial focus of the project will be on the Gifford Building to help the College of Health and Human Sciences in implementing a hands on learning tool for the Fermentation Science and Technology (FST) program. The CSU Brewery Automation team will be working with Malisko Engineering to create a fully automated brewery to replace the current brewing set up. The team will also be working with the FST program to optimize the brewing process and to create a new class about starting up a brewery. Due to the varying of tasks that this project, the team will be a multi-disciplinary team comprised of two Mechanical engineering students, two Chemical & Biological engineering students, a Computer engineering student, and two Independent Study students from the Electrical engineering department. Project Importance: The Brewing Automation Project is a unique way to contribute to the advancement of Colorado State University, particularly in the Fermentation Science and Technology Department (FST). Upon completion of the project, students enrolled in the FST program will have access to a new, state of the art brewing system which will allow for increased degree development through experiential learning. Project importance also reaches beyond the FST program to community and industry partners. Upon completion, the system is to be utilized as a test and pilot brewery for industry partners as well as a testing ground for new equipment or processes. This project is also valuable to the CSU Brewery Automation Senior Design Team because it will provide large scale, team focused, engineering experience to the student members. Revision History: Revision Comments Date By New 9/16/2016 Julia Tucker

2 Page 2/8 1. Problem Statement a) The Colorado State University Fermentation Science and Technology Department (hereafter referred to as FST or the department ), along with Malisko Engineering (hereafter referred to as Malisko ), seeks to utilize a team of undergraduate engineering students (hereafter referred to as the team ) to design--with the possibility of commissioning--the department s brewing operations in the Gifford Building. i) The Gifford Building Brewery (the Gifford Brewery ) will need to be designed and specified according to Malisko and FST requirements for the purpose of serving as an academic or otherwise research facility. 2) Objectives a) With regards to this, the team will at the close of the project provide FST with: 1. appropriate plant documentation, 2. functional code, and 3. a working brewery. i) Appropriate documentation includes: (1) and Instrumentation Diagrams (P&ID) (2) Functional Design Specifications (FDS) (3) Standard Operating Procedure Documents (SOP) (4) Electrical Drawings and I/O Configuration Information (a) This includes both drawings generated by the team, and cabinet design work developed in relation with Malisko. (5) Network Topology Drawings (6) Architectural Diagrams (7) (optional) Plant Efficiency Evaluations (8) Any other pertinent documentation which may arise over the course of this project ii) Specifications for operational code include: (1) Individual unit operations fully composed in Allen-Bradley RSLogix5000 (2) Debugged to the fullest extent of the team s capabilities (3) Functional in a manner sufficient to operate the brewery s processes and clean-in-place (CIP) procedures when started manually by an operator iii) A working brewery will be one that adheres to the following requirements: (1) All equipment is operational, tested, and working to specification (a) Equipment includes vessels, motors, instrumentation (analog and digital), valves, electrical cabinets, etc. (2) Equipment will be responsive to PLC/SCADA-originated commands (3) (optional) A minimum of one (1) full-strength brew successfully brewed, fermented, and packaged to specification. (4) (optional) Fully and wholly automated 3) Final Design Information a) The conclusion of this project should see the establishment of, and successful brewing in, the Gifford Brewery and the successful completion of all agreed-upon deliverables at budget, to specification, and on time. i) Agreed upon deliverables includes: (1) All expectations set forth in this charter (2) The Gifford Brewery as currently defined: (a) One (1) Malt Crusher and one (1) Flex Auger (b) One (1) Grist Hopper and one (1) Flex Auger (c) One (1) Cereal Cooker

3 Page 3/8 (d) One (1) Mash Tun (e) One (1) Lauter Tun and one (1) Rake Assembly (f) One (1) Wort Holding Vessel (g) One (1) Wort Kettle (h) One (1) Whirlpool (i) One (1) Trub Tank 4) Design and Implementation Constraints a) Design constraints are relevant issues that the team is aware of, that may or currently do pose a constraint on free design and implementation of the brewery. These constraints include--but are not limited to--customer specifications, contractor specifications, and spatial constraint. i) Foreseeable constraints on design of the Gifford Brewery include the following: (1) Spatial Limitations (a) Relative equipment size to current process equipment and location (b) Overhead building space availability (limited by the piping network) (c) Multiple contractors estimating space utilization (i) Coordination of contractor work estimates (ii) Reality of what contractors install given space constraints and limitations (d) Maintenance feasibility constraints (i) Measurement/Control equipment access ease and availability after installation (2) Security/Access (a) Team having necessary access to FST lab in Gifford (b) Contractor coordination with Malisko (e.g. location access, installation scheduling) (3) Financial Constraints (a) The given budget from Malisko and FST program (i) What this budget allows for equipment purchasing/contractor services (ii) Coordination of financial obligation between parties (b) Utilizing Malisko and outside companies to draft P&IDs and process flow diagrams (c) Equipment/Controls order processing downtime based on finance (4) Equipment Capacity (a) Accurate and judicious equipment specifications based on system capacity (b) Matching equipment operating specifications with coexistent equipment (5) Time Constraints (a) Contractor scheduling (b) Task and deliverable timeline (i) Also include time it takes contractors to complete tasks (can fluctuate based on circumstances) 5) Estimated Budget a) Project budget will include costs involved with supplying team with necessary stationery and logistic/organizational equipment, mechanical and electrical equipment for physical installation and commissioning, and any necessary personal protective equipment (PPE). Budget may also include third party drafting fees/engineering hours. i) Categories of budget can be seen in listed points. These points are areas of consideration to be included in the project budget. NOTE : Estimated monetary values shall be assigned as beginning phases of the project begin to take form. (1) Necessary equipment (a) Stationery supplies (i) Binders, paper, pens/pencils, paper (Arch E, 11 x 17 ),

4 Page 4/8 (ii) Plotter paper/ink (b) Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) (i) Safety glasses (ii) Ear protection (iii) Electrical grounding gloves/footwear (c) Tooling (i) Multi-meters (ii) Analog transmitter calibration devices (iii) Electrical extension equipment (iv) Temporary workspace equipment (portable tables, chairs, carts) (2) Potential Required Services (a) Drafting Services (i) Hourly Drafting Fees from third party drafting firm or Malisko (ii) Malisko consultation fees 6) Risk Analysis a) To the best ability and foresight of the team, the following are points noted as pertinent to account for as they may impact project completion or installation goals and/or timeline. Appropriate FMEA tables are attached below. i) Points of note include: individual equipment functionality, shipment times, equipment installation scheduling delays, process functionality, and software. Each is listed with a foreseeable potential problem, followed by If-so action. (1) Equipment Functionality (a) Equipment Malfunction (instrumentation, motors, transmitters, pumps, etc) (i) Diagnose and repair in house with team (ii) Diagnose with supplier and necessary supplier engineering support (iii) Diagnose with Malisko engineering team. (b) Support System Infrastructure Malfunction (Steam, Water, etc.) (i) Diagnose and repair in house with team (ii) Diagnose and repair with CSU facilities maintenance or appropriate contractor (2) Scheduling Delays (Downtime) (a) Downtime due to shipment (i) Move team to non critical path assignments (b) Downtime due to contractor estimation (i) Work continuously on other equipment commissioning (ii) Move team to any other non-critical path assignments (3) Software (a) Software Malfunction, Coding Issues (i) Work with team and CSU programming services to run diagnostics (ii) Work alongside Malisko team to diagnose/overcome any encountered problems

5 Page 5/8 Step Which Step in the Installatio n Testing Design Mode Effects Analysis: Potential Mode Ways in which it goes wrong. Downtime while waiting for parts Equipment Automation Control Incorrect Instrumenta tion Potential Effect How the failure impacts the Installatio n delays testing process Delays ability to brew on finished system Lack of Control Cannot Brew with standalone system (requires additions) SEV Severity to the customer Potential Causes Probable Causes of the failure Lack of Understandin g about correct equipment Order delay Delay from Supplier in production. Incorrect equipment, incorrect installation, incorrect automation control method Incorrect Virtual Set up System communicatio n failure Lack of understanding customer requirements Missed necessary requirement OCC Estimated Occurrenc e of failure DET Detection Probability Current Controls Current preventative measures against failures Equipment Double checks w/ approval before ordering Installation by contractors Installation checkouts w/ team and customer Approval of Virtual Setup. Batch Breakdown testing Approval of P&ID and instrumentatio n list RPN Severity x Occurrenc e x Detection Recommende d Action Recommende d action for team Communicate problem w/. Quickly contact supplier. Trouble Shoot to root cause Contact Equipment supplier for technical support Work w/ Malisko for virtual setup assistance Acquire needed equipment as soon as possible Project Timeline: See charts below.

6 Project Charter Page 6/8