1. Team Barley Busters Team Members: Mike Hayes, ME Jeremy Weber, ME Arie Blom, ME Adam Burk, BAE Jacob Gray, BAE Advisor: Dr. Tom Hess

2. 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.

3. Original Apparatus

4. Problems Encountered with Original Apparatus Noise from compressed air/ inconvenient Not self-cleaning Poorly repeatable results Slow speed to achieve desired hull removal

5. 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.

6. Preliminary Designs Considered Alternative 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

7. Preliminary Designs (cont.) To hull trap and vacuum Abrasive disk Alternative Design 2: Coffee Grinder

8. Head Thresher Initial 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

9. 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

10. Baseline Testing and Rating SampleInitial Weight (g)End Weight (g)Hull Removed (g) 15046.313.69 25046.553.45 349.9946.73.29 449.9946.53.49 550.0246.563.46 65046.843.16 750.0146.613.4 850473 950.0146.663.35 1050.0246.723.3 Average Hull Removed = 3.359g Standard 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

11. Hull Being Removed (Test Results)

12. Decision Matrix

13. Final Design Solution Modifications Solid Model

14. Servo Motors Servo Stands Funnel Barley Stopper Funnel and Stopper (Front View)

15. Servo Attachment Funnel and Servos (Top View)

16. New Nozzle Servo Motor Barley Stopper Nozzle Attachment

17. Air Flow Analysis Nozzle Attachment Problems before nozzle: -Full kernels collected in with hull sample -Not enough circulation in bottom of cylinder

18. Air Flow Analysis Without Insert With Insert Slower Velocity than without insert

19. Air Flow Analysis Without Insert With Insert Where Barley would be ‘stuck’

20. Dust Bag Sieve Sieve and Dust Bag

21. Testing with New Sieve barley testing with new sieve: 2/28/2011Hull sample Samplebarley weight beforebarley weight afterweight of hull removedhull weightWeight difference 150.0146.453.563.130.43 250.0146.323.693.080.61 350.0146.293.723.220.50 450.0146.563.452.960.49 550.0146.683.332.910.42 650.0146.453.563.100.46 750.0146.403.613.130.48 850.0146.853.162.670.49 950.0146.363.653.210.44 1050.0146.543.473.050.42 max. weight removed3.72 min weight removed3.16 avg. weight removed3.52 std. deviation0.1733Recovery = 99%

22. Electronics Case Input and Display Electrical Components

23. Electronic Configuration

24. Cost Estimate Head 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

25. Final Test Results Run TimeSample #InitialFinalLossHull WgtDifference 2 Seconds150.0148.211.81.570.23 Std. Dev=0.034928 25048.261.741.540.2Average Difference=0.182 350.0148.231.781.620.16 % Recovered=99.99636 450.0148.251.761.60.16 Average Removed=1.782 550.0148.181.831.670.16 Run TimeSample #InitialFinalLossHull WgtDifference 15 Seconds15046.033.973.370.6 Std. Dev=0.051478 25046.063.943.360.58Average Difference=0.612 35046.053.953.370.58 % Recovered=99.98776 450.0145.974.043.410.63 Average Removed=3.99 55045.954.053.380.67

26. DFMEA Design Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (DFMEA) Item and Function Potential Failure Mode (s) Potential Effect(s) of Failure SEVSEV Potential Cause(s) of failure OccurOccur Current Design Controls DetectDetect RPNRPN Recommended Actions De-hullPaddles breakNo de-hulling2 -Weak materials 1 -Select material designed for tougher barley 36 -Poor construction -ensure that construction is done properly Motor failsNo de-hulling5 Exceeded lifetime/speed 1 -test material to x- amount of cycles SeparationMotor fails Possibly no suction 5 -Exceeds life expectancy of motor 1 Loss of controls Too much/not enough suction 4 -Burn/ break microcontroller 2 CollectionSpilling material Faulty results1-Bad seal/construction 2-ensure that all seals are done properly and construction is adequate

27. Questions? Recommendations?