we are working on our final project and my parts are customer/ functional Requirements and Validations. So, I have done with customer requirements and validations in a table and I need you to complete the functional Requirements which mean go more specific in customer requirements and find 1 or 2 functional requirement from each customer requirement
also, I upload one example final report from last year but in different project, so this example has a customer/functional requirements and validations in one table which may help you more
and I upload a description file of our project that has some pictures

let me know if you have any question

Senior Design Team 4 Semester Report

Schwing Concrete Pump Hydraulic Water-Box Connection

Executive Summary (Last part written)

Table of Contents
1. Title Page
2. Executive Summary
3. Table of Contents
4. Problem Statement
5. Background Information
6. Deliverables
7. Customer/Functional Requirements and Validations
8. List of proposed concepts and decision mechanism
9. Description of chosen design and task breakdown structure
10. Description of engineering rigor in validating design
11. Risk Assessment
12. Bill of Materials
13. Project plan (Gantt chart, etc.)
14. References
15. Appendices

Problem Statement

Schwing America, Inc. manufactures concrete pumps, and after the pumps are shut down for several hours, the hydraulic oil cools and condenses, creating a vacuum. The vacuum pulls in the water from the water-box, which introduces sediments into the oil, reducing the effectiveness and lifespan of the pumps. Schwing America, Inc. envisions a solution in which no oil contamination occurs as a result of the pumping process and which meets requirements regarding structural integrity, industry standards, the update of current units, and pump maintenance.
Background

SCHWING America Inc. is the largest manufacturer of concrete pumps in North America. They offer industry leading concrete pumps, trucks mixers, batch plants, reclaimers and parts for distribution in North and Latin America. They are headquartered in White Bear, MN. SCHWING America is a member of the SCHWING GROUP, A worldwide designer, manufacturer and distributor of premium concrete production and handling equipment (1). The SCHWING Group is headquartered in Herne, Germany and was founded in 1934 by the late, Mr. Fredrich Schwing Sr.

Hydraulic Pump:
SCHWING AMERICA designs and manufacture many different sizes of concrete pumps. However, most of them follow a very similar design. Below figure XX shows a diagram of a basic concrete pump manufactured by SCHWING. It’s a hydraulic pump consisting of two sets of cylinders on either side of the water box. On the right side of the picture, the hydraulic cylinders are located in the rear of the truck. These cylinders are actuated by pressurized hydraulic oil. The oil that is pressurized will alternate between the both hydraulic cylinders. This will push one shaft forward and the other back, creating the pumping and suction motion. The water box that is located in the middle separating both sets of cylinders is used to clean the shafts as they pass through it. Seals are placed on either side of the water box to prevent sediment or water from entering the hydraulic cylinders. On the left side of the water box, as seen in the figure below, a set of material cylinders are located. This cylinders each contain a ram and shaft used to either push or suction the material in. The concrete suctioned into the cylinder then pushed out
Figure x. *****************************
Oil contamination
The Senior design team has been tasked with finding a solution to the oil contamination problem that SCHWING experiences with their hydraulic pumps. When the pumps are operating the temperature of the oil in the oil cylinders is heated due to being pressurized. The water inside the water is also heated during operation but not as hot as the oil. When the pump is stopped and material is no longer being pumped

Deliverables

At the start of the project both the Senior design team and SCWHING agreed on a list of deliverables. The team will provide SCWHING with full engineering prints and calculations for 5 different water box/ differential cylinder sizes combinations. The 5 different sizes will be scaled version of the first design made. A minimum of one prototype must be created and installed on a pump-kit for testing. Full cost estimates must be created included material costs and labors costs.

Customer/Functional Requirements and Validations

The process of developing the customer requirements is one of the most important parts of communicating with the sponsor early in the project in order to fully understand what is wanted as an end product. The first set of customer requirements was developed from the original introduction and request packet that was received from the sponsor. From there, the requirements were developed more fully over the course of several preliminary meetings, both amongst the group and with the sponsor. More specific questions were asked of the sponsor’s needs as time went on and more in-depth understanding of the need developed. The main goal was to ensure that both sides of the discussions fully understood the other’s needs, wants, and questions. The customer requirements were finalized with the sponsor before the project proceeded.

Customer Requirement

Functional Requirement
Validation Method

A prototype shall be built for one model. Drawing shall be scaled for four other models.
Model to 4 Different water-box sizes
The dimensions shall be compared to the dimensions of Schwing’s pumps.
No more than 5 inches to prevent hydraulic cylinders being pushed too far

The design shall function at the maximum pressure in the hydraulic cylinder of 370 bar.

The design shall be connected to Schwing’s pump testing unit, which will operate at 370 bar for three hours.

The design shall reduce the possibility of sediment in the water-box contaminating the hydraulic oil by 85%.

The prototype shall be connected to Schwing’s test pumping unit to demonstrate the prototype’s ability to reduce sediment. Oil shall be sent for testing.

The design shall attach to and function with both existing and new units.

The prototype shall be connected to Schwing’s test pumping unit to demonstrate the prototype’s ability to connect to a pre-constructed unit.

The design shall minimize interference with mating components.
The mating components of the prototype shall be compared to the mating components of existing units to demonstrate compatible dimensions and therefore ease of mating

The design shall have parts to which Schwing’s typical maintenance procedure can be applied.

A pump operator from Schwing shall inspect the test pumping unit with the prototype connected in order to confirm the prototype is accessible during maintenance.

The design shall adhere to DIN standards regarding materials and welding.

The DIN standards shall be consulted, and the design shall be adjusted accordingly

The final production unit shall cost less than $1000.
The components and installation cost of the production unit shall be totaled to be less than $1000.

The design shall function at an operating temperature of 90°C.

The prototype shall be connected to Schwing’s test pumping unit and operated at 90°C.

The design shall keep the water in the pump to minimize wasted water.
The prototype shall be connected to Schwing’s test pumping unit and operated with a known volume of water in the water box. After operation, the volume of the water in the water box will be measured.

The design shall allow for instant start-up with regard to the sporadic operation of the pump.

The pump shall then be shut down and restarted, to simulate the commencement of work after a break during a typical workday.

The design shall function despite the shutdown of the hydraulic cylinders.

The prototype shall be connected to the test pumping unit, and the pump shall be operated and shut down. The prototype shall still function.

Proposed Concepts and Design Mechanism

The design process began with ten proposed designs to provide multiple options for a solution. In the interest of brevity, five of the ten designs are described below, with the remaining design descriptions found in APPENDIX LETTER:
Air Separator: To prevent the vacuum from pulling the contaminated water into the hydraulic cylinder, a plate with an opening for air is inserted between the hydraulic cylinders and the water box. The effectiveness relies on replacing water as the vulnerable fluid with air, and due to the opening in the plate, the vacuum pulls in an infinite amount of air, so the water in the water box is never disturbed. The air separator development and design is further outlined in “Detailed Superior Concept.”

Oil Reservoir: The oil reservoir concept is based on the principle of shifting the oil vacuum from the hydraulic cylinders at the back of the water box to oil reservoirs on the side of the water box, pulling contaminated water away from the hydraulic cylinders. As demonstrated in Figure NUMBER (SHOWN TO LEFT), two reservoirs of oil are connected to each side of the water box and heat up with the pump operation. Upon shutoff of the pump, the cooling oil in each reservoir pulls the contaminated water to the side of the water box rather than the water being pulled into the hydraulic cylinders. When the oil in the reservoirs is contaminated, the reservoirs are unattached from the water box and, using a connecting bar, transported and emptied. The team did not decide upon a method to heat the reservoirs. One concern with the oil reservoir design addresses its effectiveness. The team decided pulling contaminated water to the sides of the water box with the reservoirs would not reduce oil contamination in the hydraulic cylinders by a useful amount. Furthermore, the design calls for emptying the reservoirs when contamination occurs, which leads to wasted water. After discussions with the sponsor regarding the value of water on the project sites, the team decided wasting water is a detrimental trait and therefore would make the oil reservoir an unappealing design for the sponsor.

Brushes: Another possible concept involves brushes on the inside of the hydraulic cylinders in order to collect any contaminants that enter the cylinder. The brushes are installed on the cylinder end nearest the water box, as shown in Figure NUMBER (SHOWN TO LEFT). Therefore, any contaminants penetrating the seals are stopped by the brushes as soon as possible, avoiding contamination of the oil farther into the cylinder. However, the brushes require disassembling the cylinders to perform installation and maintenance. Furthermore, because the sponsor wishes for a solution to prevent contaminants from entering the cylinder (whereas the brushes collected contaminants after entering the cylinder), the brush concept was discarded.

Loop Oil Separator: The loop oil separator separates the contaminants in the oil from traveling farther into the hydraulic cylinder. Resembling the scraper in the current pump design (see Figure NUMBER OF PUMP DIAGRAM IN BACKGROUND), the loop oil separator is installed inside the hydraulic pump, demonstrated in Figure NUMBER (SHOWN TO RIGHT). When contaminants enter the hydraulic cylinder, the loop oil separator collects the contaminants as they travel through the cylinder, preventing further contamination. The concept holds its name because the design team initially believed the loop oil was next to the water box, so the loop oil separator would separate contaminated loop oil from clean loop oil. While the concept preserves water and oil, unlike the oil reservoir, it requires disassembling for maintenance, like the brushes. Also like the brushes, the loop oil separator is not effective at keeping contaminants out of the hydraulic cylinder, instead serving to separate contaminants once the oil is already contaminated. For these reasons, the concept was bypassed.

The air separator is the team’s recommended design because it has the highest score on the Pugh chart (see Table NUMBER), to be discussed in the following section.

Design Description and WBS

The air separator is based on the principle of separating the cooling hydraulic oil and the contaminated water with air to prevent the vacuum from pulling the water into the hydraulic cylinder. A cross-sectional view of the air separator is shown in Figure NUMBER (SHOW TO RIGHT). The completed prototype is constructed by welding two of these cross-sectional pieces together. The current pump design sets the cooling oil next to the water, as seen in Figure NUMBER (SHOW TO RIGHT). Because this pump design makes the water vulnerable to the growing vacuum, the air separator inserts between the hydraulic cylinders and the water box, separating the two fluids with air. Therefore, when a vacuum is created due to the cooling oil, air is pulled into the hydraulic cylinders rather than water, preventing oil contamination. Furthermore, because the hole on the bottom of the separator allows the vacuum access to the pump’s surrounding environment, the volume of air available to the vacuum is infinite. Seals will be installed on two of the separator’s four major holes, with the two holes next to the water box having no seals. This lack of seals allows for easier maintenance, since the seals close to the water box would have to be lubricated, as well as lower cost. The air separator concept was chosen based on its performance regarding the Pugh chart’s criteria. The Pugh chart is presented in Table NUMBER:
Table NUMBER: Revised Pugh chart for design selection

The team judged the ten possible concepts on criteria derived from the customer requirements. The concepts ware rated with a +, -, or 0 for each criteria. As demonstrated in Table PUGH CHART NUMBER, the air separator scored a + in each criteria except “Ease of Installation.” It scored 0 for installation because it was believed removing the hydraulic cylinders for installation and maintenance could prove difficult.

The “Water Efficiency,” “Reaction Time,” and “System Compatibility” criteria were added to the Pugh chart when, as described in the previous section, the Pugh chart was revised after the design down-select. After discussing the problem with their sponsor, the team learned water is a valuable resource on project sites and therefore needs to be conserved. In the first Pugh chart, water conservation was not accounted for in the design evaluation, so the “Water Efficiency” criteria was added. “Reaction Time” was added to the Pugh chart because, in the discussion following the down-select presentation, the sponsor described the need for a solution able to work immediately upon pump start-up, which certain other designs were not able to do. In the same discussion, the sponsor informed the design team the solution would need to operate after pump shutdown but while other trailer operations continued (such as boom placement). This advice influenced the decision of the “System Compatibility” criteria.

DESCRIBE WBS (what’s the difference between the WBS in this section and the one in the Project Plan section?)

Engineering Rigor

The tests created for the air separator address the structural integrity of the design, the existence of a vacuum with the plate installed on a pump, and the ability of the water in the water box to penetrate the seals during pump operation (NOT FINISHED). These areas were identified during the design process as being crucial to the design’s success because each of these areas underlies the air separator’s safety and effectiveness. Without structural integrity, the design will be ineffective as well as pose a safety hazard to the pump operator and anyone else in the vicinity of the pump should catastrophic failure of the plate occur. Furthermore, because a vacuum due to the cooling oil causes oil contamination on the current pump design, it is necessary to test for the existence of a vacuum in the air separator because, should a vacuum exist across the plate, the plate is ineffective, and water can be pulled out of the water box and onto the ground. Lastly, the design team has been informed throughout the design process the water penetrates the seals when the pump is shut down and a vacuum is created due to the cooling oil. REASON WHY WE ARE DOING THE WATER TEST.

The structural test consists of an ANSYS model (Figure NUMBER, SHOWN TO THE RIGHT) subjected to a force representing the hydraulic pressure in the pump. The analysis simulates the worst case scenario, or “deadheading.” When the pump “deadheads,” one cylinder is at the back of its stroke while the other is at the front of its stroke, and neither one can move (such as when the concrete has jammed the back cylinder). As both cylinders try to overcome the resistance holding them in place, the force on the air separator increases until catastrophic failure occurs. As outlined in the customer requirements, the plate must withstand this type of pressure up to 370 bar. By simulating this situation, the ANSYS analysis produces the necessary dimensions for the air separator to withstand the 370 bar maximum pump pressure. Using these dimensions ensures structural integrity for the design. A description of the analysis procedure can be found in Appendix ENGINEERING RIGOR.

ARE WE GOING TO DO THE ANSYS TEST WITH THE ENTIRE AIR SEPARATOR OR JUST THE CROSS-SECTION.

The vacuum test recreates the pump connection between the cooling oil and the water on a small scale. As shown in Figure NUMBER (SHOWN TO THE LEFT), a sealed beaker of hot oil is connected to a beaker of room temperature water, simulating the hot oil in the hydraulic cylinder connected to the water in the water box. While there is a vacuum on the current pump design, with the oil and the water adjacent to each other, the vacuum test investigates whether a vacuum is created with an air gap between the two fluids as the oil cools. The presence of a vacuum between the beakers, indicated by water in the connection tube or in the oil beaker, means the air separator is based on an ineffective concept and the design must be changed. The vacuum setup and testing process is further described in Appendix ENGINEERING RIGOR.

To complete the water test, a model of the water box is constructed, shown in Figure NUMBER (SHOWN TO THE LEFT). Using a bin, seals, and hydraulic actuators, pump operation is simulated to see whether the water box leaks through the water box seals. REASON WHY WE ARE DOING THE WATER TEST.

The tests are scheduled to be carried out in the month of January, so no results have been gathered.

IN THIS SECTION, TALK ABOUT WHEN WE ARE GOING TO DO THE TESTS, THE REASONING BEHIND CHOICES, AND HOW WE WILL KNOW WHETHER OUR RESULTS WERE SUCCESSFUL.
Appendix (PROPOSED DESIGNS)
-Descriptions of the rest of the proposed designs
-Figures of the all ten of the proposed designs
-Pump diagram

Appendix (ENGINEERING RIGOR)
-Detailed description of how the ANSYS analysis was done
-Detailed description of how the vacuum test was done, including specific materials used and
reasons why we used them (like vacuum container = sealed cylinder)