High Pressure Diffuser

A Particle Counter Accessory for TSI Inc

Design Report – Volume II

Team Members
Mohd Akmal Hakim Berhanuddin
Alex Hagerman
Michael Hentges
Ethan Larson
Karrie Ann Marshall

Advisors
Richard Remiarz, TSI Inc
Troy Tillman, TSI Inc
Volume II - Table of Contents

Volume II ......................................................................................................................................... 3
1 Problem Definition Supporting Documents ............................................................................. 3
1.1 Annotated Bibliography ..................................................................................................... 3
1.2 Patent Search..................................................................................................................... 5
1.3 User Need Research .......................................................................................................... 6
1.4 Concept Alternatives ....................................................................................................... 10
1.5 Concept Selection ............................................................................................................ 11
2 Design Description Supporting Documents ........................................................................... 12
2.1 Manufacturing Plan ......................................................................................................... 12
3 Evaluation Supporting Documents......................................................................................... 25
3.1 Test Plan .......................................................................................................................... 25
3.2 Evaluation Reports........................................................................................................... 26
3.3 Cost Analysis .................................................................................................................... 31
3.4 Environmental Impact Statement ................................................................................... 32
3.5 Regulatory and Safety Considerations ............................................................................ 33
Appendix A – Volume II Tables and Figures .................................................................................. 34
Appendix B – ANSYS Simulations .................................................................................................. 35
Analysis Set 1 ............................................................................................................................. 35
Analysis Set 2 ............................................................................................................................. 38

2|Page
Volume II

1 Problem Definition Supporting Documents

1.1 Annotated Bibliography

The research conducted for this project was mostly comprised of diffusers currently offered by
other companies. This included technical specifications of the diffusers and product user
guides. This type of research was important for two reasons. The first was to gain an
understanding of the particle counting and diffuser and the second was to gain an
understanding of competitors’ products. The diffuser designed for this project needs to be
competitive with other diffusers on the market.

[1] 2011, “Basic Guide to Particle Counters and Particle Counting” PMS

This article gives a basic understanding of airborne particles in general, how they are
generated and how to measure them. This is important for gaining a basic
understanding of what the diffuser functionality is.

[2] Steven Kochevar, “100 LPM Aerosol Particle Counters: The Benefits of Sampling at Higher
Flow Rates,” PMS

This article talks about sampling particles, but doing so at higher flow rates. The primary
advantage is to reduce the time it takes to run a test and get an adequate sample. This
contains information as to why and how the diffuser needs the flow rate specifications
that it has.

[3] Mark Hallworth, 2011, “Comparing Particle Loss in Transport Tubing for Instruments with
Different Flow Rates,” PMS, 5475 Airport Boulevard, Boulder, Colorado 80301-2339

This article talks about differing flow rates and how the flow rates affect the particle
sampling efficiency, specifically related to particle loss in the tubing that connects the
particle counter to the rest of the system. The diffuser is used with a particle counter,
therefor this is an important aspect to consider.

3|Page
[4] Steven Kochevar, 2010, “Particle Monitoring in High Pressure Gas Lines,” PMS, 5475 Airport
Boulevard, Boulder, Colorado 80301-2339

This article contains information about best practices and practices to avoid when
sampling from a high pressure line. These practices are useful when trying to reduce
pressure to get a good sample. This article provides an understanding of how the
diffuser connects to a high pressure lines.

[5] Steven Kochevar, 2012, “How to Conduct Particle Transport Tests,” PMS, 5475 Airport
Boulevard, Boulder, Colorado 80301-2339

This article outlines one method to test particle counters. They use PSL in a particle
generator which is then sent to a particle counter. This was taken into consideration
when designing the tests.

[6] Steven Kochevar, Rebecca Thompson, 2010, “Testing Valves for Particle Generation,” PMS,
5475 Airport Boulevard, Boulder, Colorado 80301-2339

This article illustrates one method of testing that ensures a valve generates no particles.
It uses filters and particle counters to see if the valve creates any particles. This was
considered as an option for testing the diffuser.

[7] 2012, “74-2400 Series Regulators - Pressure Reducing,” D74241729X012, Emerson Process
Management Regulator Technologies, Inc.

These are the technical specifications for the Tescom 74-2400 pressure reducing valve.
It was a valve option for the final diffuser design.

[8] “E.S. 500 PARTICAL COUNT TEST SPECIFICATION,” Tescom Corporation, 12616 INDUSTRIAL
BLVD.ELK RIVER, MN 55330

This is the particle count test specifications for the 74-2400 pressure reducing valve by
Tescom. It was a valve option for the final diffuser design.

[9] Emtek High Pressure Diffuser, Emtek,LLC.Web. Mar. 6 2013.

http://www.emtekglobal.com/HIGH_PRESSURE_DIFFUSER/HIG_PRESSURE_DIFFUSER.ht
ml

Product specifications for a competitor’s product.

[10] HPC 1100 - High Pressure Controller, Lighthouse Worldwide Solutions. Web. Mar. 6 2013.
http://www.golighthouse.com/counter/hpc-1100-high-pressure-controller/

Product specifications for a competitor’s product.

4|Page
[11] PMS III High Pressure Diffuser
http://www.pmeasuring.com/particleCounter/air/manifold/HPDIII

Product specifications for a competitor’s product.

1.2 Patent Search

The diffuser designed for this project utilizes the basic concept of reducing pressure from a high
pressure gas line. Because of this, the project team needed to know what designs for high
pressure diffusers have already been patented to avoid potential patent infringement.

To search for patents, a Google search was performed for “High Pressure Diffuser.” The only
patent found, that relates to high pressure diffusers, is patent number 2687746. It was issued
in 1954 and is not similar to the design for this project. International Organization for
Standardization (ISO) standards are also applicable to this project because the diffuser may
have to adhere to a number of them. A search for these ISO standards was done using the
same methods used to search for the patents. Table 1, shown below, documents the findings.

Table 1: ISO and Patent Information

Title Description
ISO 8573- Compressed Air - Part 4: test methods for solid particle content
4
ISO Determination of particle size distribution -- Single particle light interaction
21501-4 methods -- Part 4: Light scattering airborne particle counter for clean spaces
ISO Cleanrooms and associated controlled environments -- Part 1: Classification of air
14644-1 cleanliness
(FS 209E) Table comparing the different classes: http://www.cleanroom-
consulting.com/media/d0b78f3b400d24edffff83b8ffffd502.pdf
Patent http://www.google.com/patents?id=zGJOAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v
2,687.746 =onepage&q&f=false

5|Page
1.3 User Need Research

To obtain the customer/user needs, a survey was created. The survey was sent to some of the
customers and distributors of TSI. The product design specifications and overall diffuser design
is based on the responses received. The responses can be found below. The customer contact
information can be found in table 2.

Table 2: Customer Contact Information

Name Email Company Company #

Thomas Stengel t.stengel@pmt.eu PMT 49 7072 922460
Ricco Scheibel r.scheibel@pmt.eu PMT 49 172 7109620
Ian Norman IanNorman@pmtgb.com PMT 44 (0) 1684 312950
Peter Knott PeterKnott@pmtgb.com PMT 44 (0) 1684 312950
Michael Klenk- m.klenk@pmt.eu PMT 49 (0) 173/3091200
Bambula (Cell)
Olaf Brüninghaus o.brueninghaus@pmt.eu PMT 49 (0) 7033 /5374-
43
Chia, Teckfoong teckfoong.chia@tsi.com TSI
JC jcjae@nts2002.com TSI Consultant

Below is the list of customer questions and answers. Only JC and Peter Knott (PK) answered the
survey.

Customer Questions:
1. What applications do your customers use the High Pressure Diffuser (HPD) for?
(PK) Pharmaceutical, Electronics and Aerospace industries all for quality control
(JC) In case of Semiconductor, LCD, LED manufacturers, they need very high quality in
gases such as Ar, CDA (Cleaned Dry Air), He, O2, H2, N2
They are monitoring moisture, O2, particle, CO, CO2, NMHC and etc in gases, it needs to
be on line rack system and portables.
Please see the attached file.

2. How will the HPD connect to the pressurized gas line?

(PK) This is always an issue and so we connect ours with flexible tubing so that the
user can adapt to their own fittings
(JC) Most of gas particle application in Korea use 1/4” VCR fitting with 316SS pipe
line.
VCR fitting is approved for very high quality gas instruments by customers.

6|Page
3. What gasses will your customers be using with the HPD and how often will they use each
gas?
(PK) Mostly compressed air or nitrogen. One of our customers uses Helium. The
frequency can depend on the requirements, Pharma are regulatory controlled and so
could be monthly checks but differs depending on site requirements and/or the amount
of points they need to check.
(JC) CDA, N2, Ar, He, H2, O2.

4. What size particles would your customers like to be able to count?

(PK) Pharma, 0.5 and 5 microns. Electronic/Semi-conductor could be as low as 0.1
micron. Aerospace could be as large as 25 micron
(JC) 0.1um, 0.3um.

5. What cleanroom or other standards do your customers use/would the HPD need to
adhere to?
(PK) ISO 14644 for most but could be internal standards which differ
(JC) I don’t know much about the standards for gas particle,

6. What flow rates do your customers operate at/would the HPD need to operate at?
(PK) Commonly 28.3 lpm as this is with a 1CFM particle counter. The issues with using
50 lpm or 100 lpm instruments is the freezing of the valves
(JC) 1.0 cfm

7. What pressures do your customers operate at/would the HPD need to operate at?
(PK) We normally dictate the pressure requirements and I think our diffuser is a
maximum of 10 bar
(JC) 30 to 150 psi.

8. Are there any fixture or mounting needs for the HPD?

(PK) Flexible is the key as all customers have different requirements
(JC) It has to be handed carry, so it needs handle and mounting for installation in rack
system.

9. Are there any special venting needs the HPD should adhere to?
(PK) None that I am aware of
(JC) No, but in case of H2,O2, it needs the special venting but I’m not sure if the
particle counter can be used for H2, O2.

10. Are there any size or packaging requirements the HPD should adhere to?
(PK) If the diffuser is damaged and particles are released then the results are not
correct which can cause huge problems. The size and weight should be minimal as these
are mostly used with portable particle counters
(JC) It is better as small as possible. I think you can see LWS’s HPC, its size is good.

7|Page
11. What is the optimum price range for the HPD?
(PK) Our diffuser was being sold for approximately 1500 USD and Particle Measuring
Systems were selling theirs for 2000 USD (2012 prices)
(JC) End user price is about USD 5,500(PMS) ~ 6,500(LWS) in Korea.

12. What materials would be preferable for the HPD to be made out of?
(PK) 316 Stainless steel
(JC) I think 316SS is better for gas particle application.

13. Are there any other suggestions or specifications you would like for the HPD?
(PK) None that I can think of
(JC) The most importance things are as following,
1. Good zero counting with particle counter.
2. Wide sample pressure range (30 to 150 psi as LWS, 25 to 120 psi as PMS)
3. Easy cleaning if it has
4. Light weight, easy moving, easy incontamination.stallation in rack system.

After getting the initial responses we had some follow up questions for JC specifically about the
HPC 1100. These questions and the answers are listed below.

1. Which gasses is the HPC 1100 designed to be used for?

(JC) Inert gases, N2, CDA, Ar, He.

2. What is the particle range of the HPC 1100?

(JC) 0.1um particle.

3. Does the HPC 1100 intake air and if so, what is the ratio of gas to intake air?
(JC) 2 to 3 lpm, its purpose is to supply ambient air to particle counter,
Because the gas is extremely dried (no moisture) so the blower and optic in particle
counter get damaged due to dried gas.
Ambient air always get humidity to add it in gas.
Therefore, total flow rate = Sample gas (about 0.9 cfm) + Ambient air through zero filter
(about 0.1 cfm (2-3lpm)) inside HPC.

4. Is the HPC 1100 electropolished or has it undergone any similar treatments?

(JC) LWS said “Change parts spec: Polished inner surface”.

5. How does the Fujikin Mega-M LV diaphragm work? Does it reduce the pressure, and if
not, how does the HPC 1100 reduce the pressure of the incoming gas?
(JC) The knob say the “Fujikin Mega-M LV” but I think you may also see “TESCOM,
ELK, RIVER, MN" "12-1B11AAEM6EM6Z, 150PSIG MAX INLET” on regulator in HPC.
LWS said the regulator is specialize made to eliminate particle shed with regulator
manufacturer and it took very long time to get good quality.

8|Page
 The regulator reduce the high pressure automatically, the Fujikin knob is used to adjust
ambient air flow rate on flow meter for 2 to 3 lpm.
If you don’t run particle counter (Not turn on blower in particle counter), the ball of flow
meter doesn’t move even though gas is supplied to HPC.
You have to run particle counter (turn on blower in particle counter) to adjust ambient
flow rate.

9|Page
1.4 Concept Alternatives

1.4.1 Variable Inlet

One option for the design of the diffuser was to vary the amount of industrial gas that enters
into the diffuser. To accomplish this a variable orifice would be needed at the inlet. A
diaphragm valve was determined to be a variable orifice to use. A diaphragm valve would be
used to reduce the pressure from the high pressure industrial gas line by only allowing a small
flow of gas, less than 1 CFM, through the inlet. Filtered, outside air would be added to the flow
of industrial gas to create a total flow of 1 CFM to the particle counter. The flow would be
controlled manually with the valve to achieve the desired ratio of industrial gas and filtered,
outside air. This can be accomplished because the particle counter pulls 1 CFM of vacuum at
the diffuser’s outlet.

1.4.2 Variable Outlet

Another design option for the diffuser is using a variable outlet. This design uses orifice plate(s)
to reduce the pressure through the diffuser. The orifice would be fixed in size, so the term
variable outlet refers to the amount of industrial gas exhausted. The exhausted industrial gas
combined with an orifice create an initial pressure reduction. This design introduces filtered,
outside air through the use of a second orifice and the vacuum created by the particle counter.

1.4.3 Control System

A third design option for the diffuser used a control system with a variable inlet. The control
system would allow the diffuser to automatically adjust the high pressure inlet to control the
flow rate. The inlet consists of a diaphragm valve and a flow meter to provide feedback to the
control system. This operation would be performed with a simple button push by the user.
This operation minimizes the interaction required by the user and eliminates potential user
error. This option was not considered due to the complexity and estimated cost.

10 | P a g e
1.5 Concept Selection

To select a final design concept a list of advantages and disadvantages was compiled for two of
the design concepts, Variable Inlet and Variable Outlet. The advantages and disadvantages can
be found in table 3. In addition the advantages and disadvantages, the top five design
requirements were considered for these two concepts. Table 4 contains the design
requirements and the design concepts that meet the requirement.

Table 3: Design Concept Advantages and Disadvantages

Variable Inlet (1) Variable Outlet (2)

Advantages  No venting (no wasted gases)  Variable Flow rates

 Off the shelf parts  Self-Correcting
 Simpler (repair/maintenance)
 Product Flexibility
 Cheaper

Disadvantages  No variation in outlet  Vents (wastes gases)

 Human correction needed
 Complexity
 More Expensive

Table 4: Design Concept and Requirement Evaluation

Design Requirement Design Concept

Particle Size 1, 2

Contamination 1, 2

Maximum Working Pressure 1, 2

Flow Rate 1, 2

Cost 2

Although cost was not included in the requirements used for the design of the diffuser, it is
recognized as an important requirement for this product. The diffuser will be marketed and
sold to current and future TSI customers therefor the cost should be included in choosing the
design concept. TSI considers a final product cost of $800 ideal and $1,000 acceptable.

The results found in table 4 indicate that both design concepts meet the top four design
requirements. The variable output concept was determined to have a lower cost, more
advantages, and less disadvantages. This was the concept chosen for the diffuser.
11 | P a g e
2 Design Description Supporting Documents

2.1 Manufacturing Plan

The diffuser assembly can be seen in figure 1. An exploded view of this drawing, showing the
orifice placements, can be seen in figure 2.

Figure 1: Diffuser Assembly

12 | P a g e
 Figure 2: Diffuser Assembly; Exploded View

13 | P a g e
2.1.1 Manufacturing Overview

The diffuser consists of three orifices, three Swagelok fittings, two pipes, and a barbed fitting.
The assembly of the diffuser is broken up into three sections, described below.

For section one of the diffuser, a 3/8 inch Union Swagelok Fitting is attached to the first pipe
with orifice 1 placed in the fitting and at the end of pipe one. These components can be seen in
figures 3, 4, and 6 respectively.

Section two contains a 3/8 inch Swagelok Cross Fitting, Orifice 2, Pipe 2, two exhaust filters and
filter connectors. The cross fitting is attached to the end of pipe 1, opposite of the union fitting.
Opposite of pipe 1, pipe 2 is attached to the cross fitting with orifice 2 placed in the fitting and
at the end of pipe 2. The air filter connectors and air filters are attached to the remaining two
openings in the cross fitting. The cross fitting, orifice 2, and pipe 2 are shown in figures 5, 8,
and 7 respectively.

The third section is comprised of a 3/8 inch Swagelok Tee Fitting, Orifice 3, an air filter
connector, an air filter, and a barbed fitting. The tee fitting is attached to the end of pipe 2,
opposite of the cross fitting. The barbed fitting is attached to the tee fitting opposite of pipe 2.
The air filter connector is attached to the remaining opening on the tee fitting with orifice three
placed in the fitting and at the end of the air filter connector. The air filter is then attached to
the air filter connector. The tee fitting and orifice 3 are shown in figures 9 and 10. The barbed
fitting is shown in figure 11.

14 | P a g e
2.1.2 Part Drawings

Figure 3: Inlet Fitting

15 | P a g e
 Figure 4: Inlet Pipe

16 | P a g e
 Figure 5: Connection Fitting for Air Exhaust

17 | P a g e
 Figure 6: Orifice 1

18 | P a g e
 Figure 7: Second Pipe

19 | P a g e
 Figure 8: Orifice 2

20 | P a g e
 Figure 9: Fitting for Air Inlet

21 | P a g e
 Figure 10: Orifice 3

22 | P a g e
 Figure 11: Outlet to Particle Counter Fitting

23 | P a g e
2.1.3 Bill of Materials

The bill of materials for the diffuser consists of the components needed to construct the
prototype. The final manufacturing bill of materials may differ from this. Table 5 below shows
the summarization of bill of materials. The total cost of the materials is $862.01.

Table 5: Bill of Materials

Item Component Quantity Part # Supplier Description Cost

# (USD)

1 Swagelok 3/8” 1 2507- Swagelok Stainless Steel $15.00

Union Fitting 1210-3

2 Swagelok 3/8“ 1 2507- Swagelok Stainless Steel $20.00

Tee Fitting 1210-3

3 Swagelok 3/8” 1 Swagelok Stainless Steel $20.00

Cross Fitting

4 3/8” Tube: 1 - TSI Inc 316 Stainless Steel $8.25

3 inch Electro-polished

5 3/8” Tube: 1 - TSI Inc 316 Stainless Steel $10.50

5 inch Electro-polished

6 Barb fitting 1 104098 TSI Inc Connect HPD to $4.00

particle counter

8 Orifice 1 1 - TSI Inc 3/8” Outer $40.50

Diameter

9 Orifice 2 1 - TSI Inc 3/8” Outer $40.50

Diameter

10 Orifice 3 1 - TSI Inc 3/8” Outer $40.50

Diameter

11 Exhaust Filter 2 TSI Inc Pall Breathing $29.34

Circuit Filter

12 Air Inlet Filter 1 BB50T TSI Inc Pall Breathing $14.67

Circuit Filter

13 Air Filter 3 TSI Inc Machined by TSI $618.75

Connector

24 | P a g e
3 Evaluation Supporting Documents

3.1 Test Plan

Table 6 contains the test plan for evaluating the diffuser’s performance.

Table 6: Test Plan

Test Materials Needed Test Procedure

Outlet Flow Prototype Apply pressurized clean dry air at diffuser inlet at the
Rate Clean Dry Air following pressures:
Flow Meter  30psi
Filter (prototype)  45psi
Point of Use Filter  60psi
 75psi
 90psi
 105psi
 120psi
 135psi
 150psi
Measure air flow at diffuser outlet with flow meter

Particle Size Prototype Apply pressurized clean dry air at diffuser inlet at the
Particle Counter following pressures:
& Filter (prototype)  30psi
Lighthouse HPD  45psi
Contamination PMS HPD  60psi
Clean Dry Air, Nitrogen,  75psi
Helium, Argon  90psi
 105psi
Particles of a known size?  120psi
 135psi
 150psi
Repeat for Nitrogen, Helium, Argon
Repeat for all gases with Lighthouse HPD
Repeat for all gases with PMS HPD

25 | P a g e
3.2 Evaluation Reports

3.2.1 Outlet Flow Rate Test

Introduction
The diffuser is intended to be used with a TSI particle counter. To avoid damaging the particle
counter and ensuring a good sample reading, the flow rate from the diffuser to the particle
counter needs to be as consistent as possible, at 1 CFM. In addition to the flow rate to the
particle counter, the air inlet flow rate must also be as consistent as possible. The filtered,
outside air from the air inlet adds moisture to the industrial gas being sampled and the
additional moisture prolongs the life of the particle counter. This must be accomplished
without diluting the industrial gas being tested. It was determined that an air flow rate from
the air inlet should not exceed 15% of the flow rate to the particle counter. The minimum flow
rate from the air inlet should be 5% of the flow rate to the particle counter.

Another design criteria that needed to be tested was the inlet pressure; both the maximum and
the minimum operating pressures for the diffuser. The design was made out of stainless steel,
so material failure was not a concern at the desired maximum working pressure of 150 psi. The
pressure affects the flow rate throughout the diffuser. As a result, the flow rate and pressure
needed to be tested at the same time. This ensures the diffuser produces the required flow
rates over the desired inlet pressure range.

Method
To test the flow rate and pressure, the diffuser prototype was assembled. A pressurized tank of
clean, dry air was connected to a regulator. The regulator allowed the test to be performed
with a variety of inlet pressures and indicated what the inlet pressure was. The regulator was
then connected to the diffuser’s inlet with a quick-connect hose.

The outlet of the diffuser was connected to a TSI particle counter using a male/female Swagelok
connection and a hose. TSI Flow Meters were connected to the diffuser at the air inlet and the
outlet to the particle counter. With the particle counter vacuum pump on, the pressurized
clean, dry air was allowed to flow into the diffuser. The flow rate at both the air inlet and the
outlet to the particle counter was recorded. The set-up for the test is shown in figures 12 and
13.

The use of Swagelok fittings for the diffuser made it easy to assemble and disassemble. This
allowed the dimensions of the pipe lengths and orifice openings to be changed throughout the
test. The variables that were changed during this test were:
 Orifice 1 diameter
 Orifice 2 diameter
 Orifice 3 diameter
 Pipe 1 length
 Pipe 2 length

26 | P a g e
 Figure 12: Assembly of the Diffuser

Figure 13: Outlet Flow Rate Test Set-Up

27 | P a g e
Results and Discussion
Table 7 contains the results of the Outlet Flow Rate Test. In total, 30 trials were conducted to
ensure the proper dimensions for the diffuser were found.

Table 7: Summary of Outlet Flow Rate Test Results

P1 P2 O1 O2 O3
Trial (in) (in) (in) (in) (in) Inlet Pressure (psi) Air Inlet Flow (l/m)
1 3 5 0.052 0.250 100
2 3 5 0.052 0.125 100
3 3 5 0.052 0.125 100
4 3 5 0.052 0.100 100 6.75
5 3 5 0.052 0.100 0.25 100 7.8
6 3 5 0.052 0.100 0.125 100 6.9
7 3 5 0.052 0.125 100 -41.5
8 3 5 0.060 0.100 100 2
9 3 5 0.070 0.100 100 6
10 2 5 0.070 0.100 100 6.5
11 4 5 0.070 0.100 100 5.7
12 3 4 0.060 0.100 100 2.55
13 4 5 0.060 0.100 90 6.4
14 4 5 0.060 0.090 90 8.7
15 4 6 0.060 0.090 90 8.1
16 5 6 0.060 0.090 90 7.3
17 5 6 0.052 0.090 90 9.1
18 5 6 0.052 0.090 90 16
19 5 6 0.052 0.090 0.100 90 13.5
20 5 6 0.052 0.090 0.100 90 0.00
21 5 6 0.052 0.090 0.100 90 7.3
22 5 6 0.052 0.090 0.080 90 6.7
23 5 6 0.052 0.080 90 12.85
24 5 6 0.06 0.080 90 10.4
25 5 6 0.06 0.100 90 4.5
26 5 6 0.07 0.100 90 0.7
27 5 4 0.060 0.100 90 6.8
28 5 6 0.060 0.125 90 -4.8
29 5 6 0.060 0.080 0.100 90 10.5
30 5 6 0.060 0.080 0.052 90 5.6

28 | P a g e
Obtaining a 1 CFM flow rate to the particle counter was not a problem because the particle
counter vacuum pump operated at that flow rate consistently. One problem that was
discovered while testing was controlling the flow rate through the air inlet into the diffuser.
The flow rate at the air inlet would change considerably when the pressure at the diffuser inlet
changed.

After analyzing the data it was determined that the changes in the flow rate at the air inlet
were minimized by increasing the air exhaust opening and placing an orifice at the air inlet. The
larger exhaust opening allowed for the exhaust increase with a higher inlet pressure. This
reduced the pressure within the diffuser at the higher inlet pressures. The orifice at the air inlet
reduces the range of flow rates into the diffuser across a large range of pressures, at the
diffuser’s high pressure inlet.

This testing resulted in a design that is able to produce the flow rates from the air inlet within
the acceptable range of 5% to 15% of the total flow rate. This is done while maintaining an
outlet flow rate of 1 CFM to the particle counter, over the entire working inlet pressure range
of 30 psi to 150 psi.

29 | P a g e
3.2.2 Particle Size and Contamination Test

Overview
The diffuser is intended to be used with a TSI particle counter to determine the purity of
pressurized industrial gas. The industries that will be using the diffuser require particles as
small as 0.1 micron to be detected. These requirements focus on the presence of particles in
the diffuser while in use.

The particle counter test results would not be accurate if the diffuser lost or generated
particles. This is defined as contamination for the purpose of this project. To ensure the
diffuser does not lose or generate particles, the design contains no moving parts. The design
also calls for electro-polishing the interior of the diffuser. The electro-polishing creates a
smooth surface to prevent particles from adhering the surface.

Method

A TSI particle counter is used to measure the particle size in an industrial gas sample being
tested with the diffuser. This procedure is repeated with a minimum of two diffusers currently
available on the market. The results from the prototype diffuser are compared to the results
from the other diffusers. This is a comparison test; the expectation is that the prototype
diffuser performs as well as competitors’ diffusers.

To test for particle generation, a zero filter is placed before the diffuser’s high pressure inlet.
This ensures that the industrial gas flowing into the diffuser does not contain any particles. Any
particles detected by the particle counter would be the result of particle generation from the
diffuser. These results would also be compared to competitors’ diffusers.

The results from both portions of this test are compared to diffusers currently available. It is
expected that the results should be within 5% of each other.

Results and Discussion

The electro-polishing process takes two to three weeks to complete. As a result, this test was
removed from the scope of this project due to time constraints. It has been included the future
work for the TSI engineering team.

30 | P a g e
3.3 Cost Analysis

The sustainability of product sales is directly dependent on its performance and its profit
margin. This makes cost an important aspect of any product. The total cost for the diffuser
prototype was $1,062.42. Table 8 contains an itemized cost breakdown for each component.
The component costs were provided by TSI.

Table 8: Cost Analysis for one Diffuser

Item Quantity Cost / Item Total

Orifice 3 $40.50 $121.50

Filter Fitting 2 $206.25 $412.50
Filter 3 $4.89 $14.67

Swagelok Tee Fitting 1 $20.00 $20.00

Swagelok Union 1 $15.00 $15.00

316 SS Tubing – 3 inch 1 $8.25 $8.25

316 SS Tubing – 5 inch 1 $10.50 $10.50

Electro-polishing 1 $300 $300.00

Labor (hours) 10 $16.00 $160.00

Total $1,062.42

The cost of the diffuser includes the materials needed for assembly, the labor required for
manufacturing, and additional processing costs. The additional processing cost refers to the
electro-polishing. This is a large portion of the cost for the diffuser. TSI does not perform
electro-polishing at their facility, so the parts need to be sent out for this process. That
contributes a lot to the high price of the process.

Diffusers currently on the market vary in their retail price. A lower end model costs around
$700.00 and higher end models sell for as much as $4,000.00. The diffuser designed for this
project should be competitive with a retail price of $1,500.00. This makes the profit margin
30%.

The component costs found in table 8 are for the prototype diffuser. It is expected that the
component in manufacturing would be significantly less. The component costs would decrease
if the components were produced in higher quantity. Some of the prototype parts were
machined as a rush order, therefor the costs were higher.

31 | P a g e
3.4 Environmental Impact Statement

The diffuser allows companies in the semiconductor and pharmaceutical industries to test their
pressurized industrial gases for contamination. This prevents contaminants from reaching their
products and rendering them unusable. A decrease in unusable products saves companies
money, through a reduction in scrap product and less labor time.

The manufacturing of the diffuser has a minimal environmental impact. The materials used to
construct the diffuser require mining iron ore for the stainless steel. The diffuser assembly is
done by hand in a clean room and causes little pollution. The electro-polishing process uses
chemical, including acids, that would be harmful if to the environment if not properly disposed
of.

During use, the diffuser requires no electricity and does not generate any pollution. It does,
however, vent excess industrial gas to the room. The industrial gases used are high purity, inert
gases, so the environmental impact is small. At the end of the diffuser’s useful life, it can be
completely recycled.

The diffuser is composed of fixed components and requires no maintenance to keep the
interior clean. The filters used at the air exhaust and the air inlet do require replacing
throughout the life of the diffuser. This produces some waste from the material inside of the
filter. The outside of the filter is plastic and can be recycled.

To address the environmental concerns, an alternative design option would be to use filters
that are either completely recyclable or biodegradable. This would remove the only significant
environmental impact of the diffuser. A second design option would be to create the fine
surface finish of electro-polishing without using the harsh chemicals.

The alternative options are not feasible for the diffuser design at this time. The diffuser already
has a very low environmental impact and the alternative options would greatly increase the
cost. A recyclable or biodegradable filter would be more expensive than the current filter. A
new filter may not possible due to the small particle size requirement, 0.1 micron, and the small
pressure drop across the filter that is needed for the diffuser’s performance.

An alternative to the current electro-polishing process could not be found. Using a company
that recycles the process chemicals and uses proper disposal procedures would reduce the
harm to the environment. Overall, the diffuser has a low impact on the environment and the
alternatives would greatly increase its cost.

32 | P a g e
3.5 Regulatory and Safety Considerations

The primary regulation applicable to the diffuser is meeting the International Organization for
Standardization (ISO) requirements for clean room environments. The diffuser will be
manufactured and operated in a clean room. The ISO standards that need to be considered can
be found in Table 1.

The diffuser’s primary safety concern stem from its use with high pressure industrial gases. The
diffuser itself does not pose any safety concerns from the pressurized industrial gas. The
strength of the materials used to construct the diffuser is more than sufficient for the approved
inlet pressures. The connection where the high pressure line attaches to the diffuser needs to
be secure. There is a safety concern in the event that the diffuser is not connected or used
properly.

33 | P a g e
Appendix A – Volume II Tables and Figures
Figure 1: Diffuser Assembly .......................................................................................................... 12
Figure 2: Diffuser Assembly; Exploded View ................................................................................ 13
Figure 3: Inlet Fitting ..................................................................................................................... 15
Figure 4: Inlet Pipe ........................................................................................................................ 16
Figure 5: Connection Fitting for Air Exhaust ................................................................................. 17
Figure 6: Orifice 1 .......................................................................................................................... 18
Figure 7: Second Pipe .................................................................................................................... 19
Figure 8: Orifice 2 .......................................................................................................................... 20
Figure 9: Fitting for Air Inlet .......................................................................................................... 21
Figure 10: Orifice 3 ........................................................................................................................ 22
Figure 11: Outlet to Particle Counter Fitting ................................................................................ 23
Figure 12: Assembly of the Diffuser .............................................................................................. 27
Figure 13: Outlet Flow Rate Test Set-Up ...................................................................................... 27

Table 1: ISO and Patent Information .............................................................................................. 5

Table 2: Customer Contact Information ......................................................................................... 6
Table 3: Design Concept Advantages and Disadvantages ............................................................ 11
Table 4: Design Concept and Requirement Evaluation ................................................................ 11
Table 5: Bill of Materials ............................................................................................................... 24
Table 6: Test Plan .......................................................................................................................... 25
Table 7: Summary of Outlet Flow Rate Test Results..................................................................... 28
Table 8: Cost Analysis for one Diffuser ......................................................................................... 31

34 | P a g e
Appendix B – ANSYS Simulations
This appendix contains some of the results obtained by modeling the high pressure diffuser in
ANSYS. The first analysis set was a preliminary analysis of the flow rates and was done to show
how the fluid flowed in our initial design. It was also used to find basic trends in changing the
locations of the exhaust and air inlet. The second analysis set builds off of the first set by
further refining the inlet and exhaust placements, and the pipe lengths in the diffuser. This set
gave us a started point for pipe lengths, orifice sizes, gas exhaust and air inlet locations used
initially in our prototype testing.

Analysis Set 1

This first ANSYS analysis was performed to give us a basic idea of the flow through the diffuser.
It showed how fluid flowed through the inlets and outlets. The results show problems with air
exhausted out of the air inlet. The problem was alleviated by moving the air inlet far away from
the second orifice.

Figure 1: Initial diffuser model

35 | P a g e
 Figure 2: Velocity streamlines of first model

Figure 3: Velocity streamlines of second model

36 | P a g e
 Figure 4: Third model of diffuser

Figure 5: Velocity streamlines of third model

37 | P a g e
Analysis Set 2

The geometry used for this set of analysis can be seen below. The table summarizes the results
from this set of ANSYS analysis.
 ANSYS Analysis 1
 ANSYS Analysis 2 - Moved fresh air inlet closer to Outlet to PC.
 ANSYS Analysis 3 - Shortened middle section / chamber
 ANSYS Analysis 4 - Moved Air Inlet Closer to Orifice 2 again, Shortened end section
(closest to PC); (Air is exhausting through inlet)
 ANSYS Analysis 5 - Moved Air Inlet Closer to Orifice 2 again, Shortened end section
(closest to PC)
Table 1: Dimensions and Results of ANSYS Analysis Set 2
Analysis 1 2 3 4 5
Dimensions
Pipe OD (in) 0.375 0.375 0.375 0.375 0.375
Pipe ID (in) 0.365 0.365 0.365 0.365 0.365
Orifice plate thickness (in) 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125
Orifice 1 Diameter (in) 0.075 0.075 0.075 0.075 0.075
Orifice 2 Diameter (in) 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
Section 1: Gas Inlet to Orifice 1 1 1 1 1 1
Section 2: Orifice 1 to Orifice 2 2 2 1.5 1.5 1.5
Section 3: Orifice 2 to Outlet to
1 1 1 0.75 1.5
PC
Distance along centerline (in)
Industrial Gas Inlet 0 0 0 0 0
Orifice 1 1 1 1 1 1
Orifice 1 1.125 1.125 1.125 1.125 1.125
Air Exhaust 2.635 2.635 2.135 2.135 2.135
Air Exhaust 3 3 2.5 2.5 2.5
Orifice 2 3.125 3.125 2.625 2.625 2.625
Orifice 2 3.25 3.25 2.75 2.75 2.75
Air Inlet 3.375 3.75 3.25 2.875 3.75
Air Inlet 3.74 4.115 3.615 3.24 4.115
Outlet to PC 4.25 4.25 3.75 3.5 4.25
Results
Gas Inlet Pressure (psi) 100 100 100 100 100
Outlet to PC Pressure (psi) 14.8236 14.8236 14.9387 15.0215
1.65801E- 1.65801E- 1.61309E- 1.64258E- 1.68664E-
Gas Inlet Mass Flow (lb/s)
05 05 05 05 05
6.15607E- 6.15607E- 1.27034E- 8.62839E-
Outlet to PC Mass Flow (lb/s)
06 06 05 06 7.2735E-06

38 | P a g e
 Figure 6: Annotated model of diffuser

Figure 7: Analysis 3 streamlines

39 | P a g e