Fall 2020 Design I Final Competition

Section A: The Wuhan Clan

Problem Statement: Keeping oil and chemical plants open or running at full capacity during Covid-19 using an autonomous gas well sensor.

Team Members: Kagan Giltinan, Alperen Ugus, Ivan Martens, Jack Burnham and Matthew Galasso

Instructor: Bridget Wetzel

 

16 Comments

  1. Really good video and very interesting product that could help with well monitoring remotely. I could see the potential for this product to go beyond the pandemic and save costs in the future. My questions are:

    1. Does the monitor only detect methane? (that’s what you tested) Are there other gases that it monitors?
    2. Is your device meant only for monitoring wells, or could it be used for other monitoring purposes?
    3. Did your team have to pivot with your design? If so, what did you change and why?

  2. Hello Professor Case,

    Our team talked in Discord, and multiple teammates answered the questions. But we are posting a single response post to reduce clutter.

    0. Yes this could be used beyond a pandemic situation. And active monitoring of pipelines would help with the early detection of leaks, particularly small ones that don’t trigger the usual pressure drop first warning. Until now there has not been enough of a necessity to develop this device to get over the development costs. But now we have that necessity, and it could become industry standard practice. (Answered by the team)

    1. Our prototype only monitors methane since that was the sensor we could get within time and cost constraints for our prototype. A production model sensor like the existing PID sensors can detect and report on a wide range of gasses. In our cost-benefit analysis we used the cost of the wide range PID sensor for our evaluations. (Answered by Ivan)

    2. Our device is meant specifically for wells as that was an unmet need. There are other built in gas sensors systems for other applications. Our system is more of an adaptation from those other systems to this specific application. (Answered by Ivan)

    3. Our device had 3 major pivots, the first was to change the structure of the casing and orientation of the components and sub-systems to allow dust and moisture filtration of the ambient air going into the detection chamber, as well as an addition of a fan to draw air through these filters and over the gas detector. The second major change was to change the casing shape and size to be smaller and fit inside the well pipe with little airflow obstruction, and to connect to the pipe cap by a suspended wire rather than be bolted to the cap its self so it can be lowered further into ground. The last change we had was to change the material of the casing from PVC to HDPE plastics to increase the corrosion resistance. This was due to feed back from one of our stakeholders, who told us that PVC performs poorly in theses areas and to use HDPE instead.(Answered by Matt)

    • Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions! Now I understand why the monitor only checks for methane gas.
      I also appreciate understanding the pivots your team made.
      Thank you!

  3. Very interesting and unique problem for your subset of stakeholders, and a very concise and informative video.

    Questions:
    1. STAKEHOLDERS
    Would you please summarize the number and variety of the stakeholders with whom you engaged, and what are, both, their biggest concerns noted in researching this problem, as well as feedback received on the design you proposed?
    2. DESIGN AND RISKS
    What is the range of typical well diameters in which this device would be installed/reside? Is the device’s size (either works-like, final design, or both) compatible with these well sizes? It appears that the device will hang from the existing plug, with wiring for data and power supply running from the device, through the plug, and to the outside. Is the plug compatible as is, or will the plug have to be modified? If it has to be modified, does this compromise the plug’s design in a manner that cause regulatory violations or pose additional risks to stakeholders, the environment, your project, etc.?
    3. APPLICATION
    Does the device broadcast to the outside monitors with a strong signal, or, like newer domestic and commercial water meters, does it require personnel to visit the vicinity (like the water company driving by wireless water meters) to collect data? Is the power source sufficient and reliable enough in your final design to support this intended application? What is the data protocol and type of signal broadcast?
    4. BREADTH & SUSTAINABILITY
    Where else can this be used? What happens to it when the pandemic eventually ends? In other words, how does this design remain applicable in other applications and post-pandemic?

    Thank you. This is a very interesting project.

    -Prof. Allam

    • Hi Professor Allam,

      Thanks for this detailed and technical questions. Here are our answers:

      1. Our primary stakeholder we talked with is one of the environmental monitors who currently cannot do their job because due to the lack of access from COVID. As one of our team members has a close connection to them, we consulted often with our stakeholder about the problem and our proposed solution. One stakeholder with direct connection the problem.

      The major concerns from the stakeholder were the lack of testing for leaks due to the lack of access. And the reduced production caused by the legal restrictions on production when monitoring is curtailed.

      The main feedback we received in our design process was in relations to materials we were using for construction and the need for filters to filter humidity. The filters need to block the humidity but not the gasses the device is supposed to detect. We found filters that meet these requirements. They are already in use and don’t need to be designed from scratch, just adapted to our system. (Answered by Ivan)

      2. The typical diameter of the detection wells is 4 inches, in our research we haven’t found any other number and from our stake holder interactions this seems to be the industry standard in the USA. The design was designed to fit in this diameter with room to spare, the pipe shown in the video with the device hanging in it is the actual size of the pipe used in the field. If there are smaller diameter pipes in other states/companies/countries, the size of the device its self can be shrunk in a production model, the prototype we have built uses larger and cheaper parts than the production model would use, and also has extra room in the component chamber we needed to facilitate putting the device together in with non-ideal components and parts. As far as the plugs go, they are mostly 2 hard plastic disks sandwiching a rubber gasket with a screw that holds the pieces together and expands the gasket to seal the well head. we would need to drill a hole into this cap to feed the wire in, but a sealant or gasket over this hole would fix any air leak issues since the wells aren’t under any sort of pressure. These holes would not have any environmental problems since the wells themselves are not supposed to have any petro-chemicals in them, and if they do, they exist in trace amounts that will be detected by the gas detector. (Answered by Matt)

      3. During the pandemic, it has become a problem for technicians to check in on the wells in-person. In order to automate this process, we designed our solution as it does not require in-person involvement so that the oil and gas supply chain would not be affected. To answer your question, for prototyping purposes, we used Sparkfun Photon Board. The Photon board has 120MHz ARM Cortex M3 microcontroller, 1MB flash, 128KB RAM, and a Broadcom BCM43362 Wi-Fi chip which is sufficient for the needs of this project since it is functional up to 150 feet distance [1]. Therefore, the data from the wells can be observed from monitors located up to 150 feet distance but this can be increased using quality Wi-Fi chips. Besides these, the production model will have an antenna and be able to work anywhere with cellular connection. So, it is possible to monitor the data from anywhere with cellular connection.

      The designed system needs 1715 mA so, the power source is completely sufficient and reliable for our application. We also thought about alternative power sources which could be found in our final report.

      Sparkfun Photon Board has single band 2.4GHz IEEE 802.11b/g/n and supports Open, WEP, WAPI, WPA and WPA2-PSK WiFi security modes. In our application, we used Sparkfun Interface to be able to connect to the board and get data. The interface directly transmits data to Photon Cloud which we logged and presented the data coming from the sensors.

      [1] “Particle Photon (Headers),” WRL-13774 – SparkFun Electronics. [Online]. Available: https://www.sparkfun.com/products/13774. [Accessed: 03-Nov-2020].

      (Answered by Alp)

      4. Our device is mostly an adaptation of other gas sensing systems. So “where else” is kind of going backwards. However, there are some other possible uses. One would be in monitoring sewer systems for sewer gasses. Two would be around any in ground storage of petroleum products. IE gas stations.

      As we responded to Professor Case, there was not the impetus to develop this when the old system was working. Now that we have the pandemic caused change to the old system, this becomes necessary. Once the initial development cost is paid, this becomes available to anywhere that needs to monitor for gas leaks. In our cost-benefit analysis we believe it will be cheaper in the long run compared to continued manual monitoring. (Answered by Ivan)

      We anticipate this design to still be applicable post-pandemic. This is because it replaces the need for companies in this field to hire consultants that would test for leaks in person. Therefore, not only will the device mitigate the problem of not being able to test for leaks in person in a pandemic scenario, but it will also provide a substitute product to the industry which companies may or may not choose to take advantage of. (Answered by Jack)

      Thank you very much for your precious time!

    • Hi Professor Allam,

      Thanks for this detailed and technical questions. Here are our answers:

      1. Our primary stakeholder we talked with is one of the environmental monitors who currently cannot do their job because due to the lack of access from COVID. As one of our team members has a close connection to them, we consulted often with our stakeholder about the problem and our proposed solution. One stakeholder with direct connection the problem.
      The major concerns from the stakeholder were the lack of testing for leaks due to the lack of access. And the reduced production caused by the legal restrictions on production when monitoring is curtailed.
      The main feedback we received in our design process was in relations to materials we were using for construction and the need for filters to filter humidity. The filters need to block the humidity but not the gasses the device is supposed to detect. We found filters that meet these requirements. They are already in use and don’t need to be designed from scratch, just adapted to our system. (Answered by Ivan)
      2. The typical diameter of the detection wells is 4 inches, in our research we haven’t found any other number and from our stake holder interactions this seems to be the industry standard in the USA. The design was designed to fit in this diameter with room to spare, the pipe shown in the video with the device hanging in it is the actual size of the pipe used in the field. If there are smaller diameter pipes in other states/companies/countries, the size of the device its self can be shrunk in a production model, the prototype we have built uses larger and cheaper parts than the production model would use, and also has extra room in the component chamber we needed to facilitate putting the device together in with non-ideal components and parts. As far as the plugs go, they are mostly 2 hard plastic disks sandwiching a rubber gasket with a screw that holds the pieces together and expands the gasket to seal the well head. we would need to drill a hole into this cap to feed the wire in, but a sealant or gasket over this hole would fix any air leak issues since the wells aren’t under any sort of pressure. These holes would not have any environmental problems since the wells themselves are not supposed to have any petro-chemicals in them, and if they do, they exist in trace amounts that will be detected by the gas detector.
      3. During the pandemic, it has become a problem for technicians to check in on the wells in-person. In order to automate this process, we designed our solution as it does not require in-person involvement so that the oil and gas supply chain would not be affected. To answer your question, for prototyping purposes, we used Sparkfun Photon Board. The Photon board has 120MHz ARM Cortex M3 microcontroller, 1MB flash, 128KB RAM, and a Broadcom BCM43362 Wi-Fi chip which is sufficient for the needs of this project since it is functional up to 150 feet distance [1]. Therefore, the data from the wells can be observed from monitors located up to 150 feet distance but this can be increased using quality Wi-Fi chips. Besides these, the production model will have an antenna and be able to work anywhere with cellular connection. So, it is possible to monitor the data from anywhere with cellular connection.

      The designed system needs 1715 mA so, the power source is completely sufficient and reliable for our application. We also thought about alternative power sources which could be found in our final report.
      Sparkfun Photon Board has single band 2.4GHz IEEE 802.11b/g/n and supports Open, WEP, WAPI, WPA and WPA2-PSK WiFi security modes. In our application, we used Sparkfun Interface to be able to connect to the board and get data. The interface directly transmits data to Photon Cloud which we logged and presented the data coming from the sensors.
      [1] “Particle Photon (Headers),” WRL-13774 – SparkFun Electronics. [Online]. Available: https://www.sparkfun.com/products/13774. [Accessed: 03-Nov-2020].
      (Answered by Alp)
      4. Our device is mostly an adaptation of other gas sensing systems. So “where else” is kind of going backwards. However, there are some other possible uses. One would be in monitoring sewer systems for sewer gasses. Two would be around any in ground storage of petroleum products. IE gas stations.
      As we responded to Professor Case, there was not the impetus to develop this when the old system was working. Now that we have the pandemic caused change to the old system, this becomes necessary. Once the initial development cost is paid, this becomes available to anywhere that needs to monitor for gas leaks. In our cost-benefit analysis we believe it will be cheaper in the long run compared to continued manual monitoring. (Answered by Ivan)
      We anticipate this design to still be applicable post-pandemic. This is because it replaces the need for companies in this field to hire consultants that would test for leaks in person. Therefore, not only will the device mitigate the problem of not being able to test for leaks in person in a pandemic scenario, but it will also provide a substitute product to the industry which companies may or may not choose to take advantage of. (Answered by Jack)
      Thank you very much for your precious time!

    • Hello Prof. Allam

      Thanks for this detailed and technical questions. Here are our answers, we are posting in parts since this website is blocking our responses here for being too long.

      1. Our primary stakeholder we talked with is one of the environmental monitors who currently cannot do their job because due to the lack of access from COVID. As one of our team members has a close connection to them, we consulted often with our stakeholder about the problem and our proposed solution. One stakeholder with direct connection the problem.
      The major concerns from the stakeholder were the lack of testing for leaks due to the lack of access. And the reduced production caused by the legal restrictions on production when monitoring is curtailed.
      The main feedback we received in our design process was in relations to materials we were using for construction and the need for filters to filter humidity. The filters need to block the humidity but not the gasses the device is supposed to detect. We found filters that meet these requirements. They are already in use and don’t need to be designed from scratch, just adapted to our system. (Answered by Ivan)

    • 2. The typical diameter of the detection wells is 4 inches, in our research we haven’t found any other number and from our stake holder interactions this seems to be the industry standard in the USA. The design was designed to fit in this diameter with room to spare, the pipe shown in the video with the device hanging in it is the actual size of the pipe used in the field. If there are smaller diameter pipes in other states/companies/countries, the size of the device its self can be shrunk in a production model, the prototype we have built uses larger and cheaper parts than the production model would use, and also has extra room in the component chamber we needed to facilitate putting the device together in with non-ideal components and parts. As far as the plugs go, they are mostly 2 hard plastic disks sandwiching a rubber gasket with a screw that holds the pieces together and expands the gasket to seal the well head. we would need to drill a hole into this cap to feed the wire in, but a sealant or gasket over this hole would fix any air leak issues since the wells aren’t under any sort of pressure. These holes would not have any environmental problems since the wells themselves are not supposed to have any petro-chemicals in them, and if they do, they exist in trace amounts that will be detected by the gas detector.

    • 3. During the pandemic, it has become a problem for technicians to check in on the wells in-person. In order to automate this process, we designed our solution as it does not require in-person involvement so that the oil and gas supply chain would not be affected. To answer your question, for prototyping purposes, we used Sparkfun Photon Board. The Photon board has 120MHz ARM Cortex M3 microcontroller, 1MB flash, 128KB RAM, and a Broadcom BCM43362 Wi-Fi chip which is sufficient for the needs of this project since it is functional up to 150 feet distance [1]. Therefore, the data from the wells can be observed from monitors located up to 150 feet distance but this can be increased using quality Wi-Fi chips. Besides these, the production model will have an antenna and be able to work anywhere with cellular connection. So, it is possible to monitor the data from anywhere with cellular connection.

    • 3. continued
      The designed system needs 1715 mA so, the power source is completely sufficient and reliable for our application. We also thought about alternative power sources which could be found in our final report.
      Sparkfun Photon Board has single band 2.4GHz IEEE 802.11b/g/n and supports Open, WEP, WAPI, WPA and WPA2-PSK WiFi security modes. In our application, we used Sparkfun Interface to be able to connect to the board and get data. The interface directly transmits data to Photon Cloud which we logged and presented the data coming from the sensors.
      [1] “Particle Photon (Headers),” WRL-13774 – SparkFun Electronics. [Online]. Available: https://www.sparkfun.com/products/13774. [Accessed: 03-Nov-2020].
      (Answered by Alp)

    • 4. Our device is mostly an adaptation of other gas sensing systems. So “where else” is kind of going backwards. However, there are some other possible uses. One would be in monitoring sewer systems for sewer gasses. Two would be around any in ground storage of petroleum products. IE gas stations.
      As we responded to Professor Case, there was not the impetus to develop this when the old system was working. Now that we have the pandemic caused change to the old system, this becomes necessary. Once the initial development cost is paid, this becomes available to anywhere that needs to monitor for gas leaks. In our cost-benefit analysis we believe it will be cheaper in the long run compared to continued manual monitoring. (Answered by Ivan)
      We anticipate this design to still be applicable post-pandemic. This is because it replaces the need for companies in this field to hire consultants that would test for leaks in person. Therefore, not only will the device mitigate the problem of not being able to test for leaks in person in a pandemic scenario, but it will also provide a substitute product to the industry which companies may or may not choose to take advantage of. (Answered by Jack)

  4. Hi Professor Allam,

    Thanks for this detailed and technical questions. Here are our answers:

    1. Our primary stakeholder we talked with is one of the environmental monitors who currently cannot do their job because due to the lack of access from COVID. As one of our team members has a close connection to them, we consulted often with our stakeholder about the problem and our proposed solution. One stakeholder with direct connection the problem.

    The major concerns from the stakeholder were the lack of testing for leaks due to the lack of access. And the reduced production caused by the legal restrictions on production when monitoring is curtailed.

    The main feedback we received in our design process was in relations to materials we were using for construction and the need for filters to filter humidity. The filters need to block the humidity but not the gasses the device is supposed to detect. We found filters that meet these requirements. They are already in use and don’t need to be designed from scratch, just adapted to our system. (Answered by Ivan)

    2. The typical diameter of the detection wells is 4 inches, in our research we haven’t found any other number and from our stake holder interactions this seems to be the industry standard in the USA. The design was designed to fit in this diameter with room to spare, the pipe shown in the video with the device hanging in it is the actual size of the pipe used in the field. If there are smaller diameter pipes in other states/companies/countries, the size of the device its self can be shrunk in a production model, the prototype we have built uses larger and cheaper parts than the production model would use, and also has extra room in the component chamber we needed to facilitate putting the device together in with non-ideal components and parts. As far as the plugs go, they are mostly 2 hard plastic disks sandwiching a rubber gasket with a screw that holds the pieces together and expands the gasket to seal the well head. we would need to drill a hole into this cap to feed the wire in, but a sealant or gasket over this hole would fix any air leak issues since the wells aren’t under any sort of pressure. These holes would not have any environmental problems since the wells themselves are not supposed to have any petro-chemicals in them, and if they do, they exist in trace amounts that will be detected by the gas detector. (Answered by Matt)

    3. During the pandemic, it has become a problem for technicians to check in on the wells in-person. In order to automate this process, we designed our solution as it does not require in-person involvement so that the oil and gas supply chain would not be affected. To answer your question, for prototyping purposes, we used Sparkfun Photon Board. The Photon board has 120MHz ARM Cortex M3 microcontroller, 1MB flash, 128KB RAM, and a Broadcom BCM43362 Wi-Fi chip which is sufficient for the needs of this project since it is functional up to 150 feet distance [1]. Therefore, the data from the wells can be observed from monitors located up to 150 feet distance but this can be increased using quality Wi-Fi chips. Besides these, the production model will have an antenna and be able to work anywhere with cellular connection. So, it is possible to monitor the data from anywhere with cellular connection.

    The designed system needs 1715 mA so, the power source is completely sufficient and reliable for our application. We also thought about alternative power sources which could be found in our final report.

    Sparkfun Photon Board has single band 2.4GHz IEEE 802.11b/g/n and supports Open, WEP, WAPI, WPA and WPA2-PSK WiFi security modes. In our application, we used Sparkfun Interface to be able to connect to the board and get data. The interface directly transmits data to Photon Cloud which we logged and presented the data coming from the sensors.

    [1] “Particle Photon (Headers),” WRL-13774 – SparkFun Electronics. [Online]. Available: https://www.sparkfun.com/products/13774. [Accessed: 03-Nov-2020].

    (Answered by Alp)

    4. Our device is mostly an adaptation of other gas sensing systems. So “where else” is kind of going backwards. However, there are some other possible uses. One would be in monitoring sewer systems for sewer gasses. Two would be around any in ground storage of petroleum products. IE gas stations.

    As we responded to Professor Case, there was not the impetus to develop this when the old system was working. Now that we have the pandemic caused change to the old system, this becomes necessary. Once the initial development cost is paid, this becomes available to anywhere that needs to monitor for gas leaks. In our cost-benefit analysis we believe it will be cheaper in the long run compared to continued manual monitoring. (Answered by Ivan)

    We anticipate this design to still be applicable post-pandemic. This is because it replaces the need for companies in this field to hire consultants that would test for leaks in person. Therefore, not only will the device mitigate the problem of not being able to test for leaks in person in a pandemic scenario, but it will also provide a substitute product to the industry which companies may or may not choose to take advantage of. (Answered by Jack)

    Thank you very much for your precious time!

  5. 3. continued
    The designed system needs 1715 mA so, the power source is completely sufficient and reliable for our application. We also thought about alternative power sources which could be found in our final report.
    Sparkfun Photon Board has single band 2.4GHz IEEE 802.11b/g/n and supports Open, WEP, WAPI, WPA and WPA2-PSK WiFi security modes. In our application, we used Sparkfun Interface to be able to connect to the board and get data. The interface directly transmits data to Photon Cloud which we logged and presented the data coming from the sensors.
    [1] “Particle Photon (Headers),” WRL-13774 – SparkFun Electronics. [Online]. Available: https://www.sparkfun.com/products/13774. [Accessed: 03-Nov-2020].
    (Answered by Alp)

    4. Our device is mostly an adaptation of other gas sensing systems. So “where else” is kind of going backwards. However, there are some other possible uses. One would be in monitoring sewer systems for sewer gasses. Two would be around any in ground storage of petroleum products. IE gas stations.
    As we responded to Professor Case, there was not the impetus to develop this when the old system was working. Now that we have the pandemic caused change to the old system, this becomes necessary. Once the initial development cost is paid, this becomes available to anywhere that needs to monitor for gas leaks. In our cost-benefit analysis we believe it will be cheaper in the long run compared to continued manual monitoring. (Answered by Ivan)
    We anticipate this design to still be applicable post-pandemic. This is because it replaces the need for companies in this field to hire consultants that would test for leaks in person. Therefore, not only will the device mitigate the problem of not being able to test for leaks in person in a pandemic scenario, but it will also provide a substitute product to the industry which companies may or may not choose to take advantage of. (Answered by Jack)
    Thank you very much for your precious time!

  6. 3.continued

    The designed system needs 1715 mA so, the power source is completely sufficient and reliable for our application. We also thought about alternative power sources which could be found in our final report.
    Sparkfun Photon Board has single band 2.4GHz IEEE 802.11b/g/n and supports Open, WEP, WAPI, WPA and WPA2-PSK WiFi security modes. In our application, we used Sparkfun Interface to be able to connect to the board and get data. The interface directly transmits data to Photon Cloud which we logged and presented the data coming from the sensors. (Answered by Alp)

    [1] “Particle Photon (Headers),” WRL-13774 – SparkFun Electronics. [Online].

    Sorry for the trouble with the comments, it seems this form censors links and the citation above contained one. It didn’t give us any feedback so I’m just guessing this will post, if it does it looks like I was right.
    Thank you for your time and questions!

  7. 1. Would this device interfere with current workflows? The size of the monitor seems to be fairly large and could conflict with the existing infrastructure.

    2. To piggyback on Yosef’s question if there is an electrical component to these monitors would this pose an explosion risk if there is a leak and a malfunction of the device?

    • Hello Professor Pickering,

      Our collected responses posted at once to reduce clutter.

      1. This device would make work easier on the onsite worker, rather than waiting for a specialist to fly in from off site to inspect a well the onsite team could do the monitoring themselves. The only major time usage would be instillation, periodic maintenance and inspection, which would take less time than hand measurements, especially if the device was programmed with a self-diagnostic program to alert the monitoring system it needs it. As for the devices size, the tube we are monitoring is already airtight with no airflow, the top is capped and sealed in order to keep air inside so when an inspector comes by a month later the gas that came from a leak is at a detectable concentration. The device also has a fan and air tube that circulates air through the device and will agitate the air in the well more than it would without the device. There would be no issue with infrastructure for our device, if anything it would serve to improve the system already in place. Also, it should be noted, the well we are monitoring does not, under ideal conditions, have any oil flowing through it, it is drilled to the side of a well containing oil in order to detect leaks into the ground water and surrounding soil. (Answered by Matt)

      2. In the risk analysis of this device we looked at that question of explosion possibilities. The first step is to seal all the electronics that are part of the “in the well” module, inside the housing so there isn’t any combustible gas mixing with the electrical parts. The second step is to use a fan with a sealed motor. As is common with all motors used in mining or other flammable situation. (Grain elevators also have lots of combustible particulates floating in the air and require sealed motors.)
      The other main consideration is that there would not be any flammable gasses present prior to sensing them. That is what we are verifying with this sensor. Gasoline vapors can combust starting at about 14,000 ppm according to OSHA (If we post links the website has been blocking our responses. So no link here.) But our system started registering gas at about 500 ppm in testing.
      So not only can we eliminate sources of ignition from the in well module, we can sense flammable gas significantly earlier than it reaches concentrations that are flammable. (Answered by Ivan)