(H) - Digital Library/67531/metadc... · Cognizant Manager ED-7400-172-2 (10/97) 21. DOE APPROVAL (if required) Ctd No. 0 Approved 0 Approved wlwmments 0 Disapproved wlwmments 80-7~172.1

2. To: (Receiving Organization) 3. From: (Originating Organization) 4. Related EDT No.:

7. Purchasc Order No.: 5. Proj./Prog./Dept./Div.: WRAP/AJ60 N/A

9. Equip.lComponent No.: 8. Originator Remarks:

N / A

Distribution WRAP Engineering N/A

G, I (W I (K) Signature (L) Date (M) MSiN dfi. &A, son des- ~ 1 ~ ~ . (J) Name

This EDT is to release supporting documentation for the WRAP Facility to Engineering Files f o r retention and retrieval.

(J) Name (K) Signature (L) Date (M) MSiN

11. Receiver Remarks: 11A. Design Baseline Document? 0 Yes @ No

.., ._ I O . SystemlBidp./Fadlity:

2336-W 12. Major A m . Dwg. NO.:

N/A 13. PermWPermtt Application No.: - 14. Required Response Date:

N/A

15. DATA TRANSMITTED (F) (0) (H) (1)

( 4 ('):pt A provai Reason fgk (6) DocumenVOrawing No. (Dkfy. (E) Title or Description of Data Transmitted gesig- r Tran item

No. nator 'rnittalC Diqo- stion Di A n 0-

1 HNF-5448 N/A 0 Evaluation of Drum Tipper S 2 1 I I I I I I I I

16. KEY

Approval Designator (F) Reason for Transmiltai (G) Disposttion (H) 8 (I)

1 I Desian Authoritv I l l

C_.. I I Cll".

$6 JK Kersten

Signature of EDT Originator

Aulhonzed Re resmtative for Receiving grganization

Design Authoi i l Cognizant Manager

ED-7400-172-2 (10/97)

21. DOE APPROVAL (if required) Ctd No. 0 Approved 0 Approved wlwmments

0 Disapproved wlwmments

8 0 - 7 ~ 1 7 2 . 1

DISTRIBUTION SHEET To D i s t r i b u t i o n

From Page 1 of 1 WRAP Engineering Data 11/22/99

Project TitlelWork Order EVALUATION OF DRUM TIPPER MECHANISM FOR WRAP HNF-5448, Rev. 0

JE Geary

JC Givens

JK Kersten

MP Lane

EDTNo. N/A ECN NO. EDT-623542

KJ L e i s t

CE Tay lo r

JR Weidert

DOE/RL Reading Room

Engineer ing F i l e s

Name

T4-51 X

T4-52

T4-52 X

T4-52

Text Text Only Attach./ EDT/ECN MSlN With All Appendix Only

Attach. Only

T4-52 X

T4-52

T4-52 X

H2-53 X

61-07 X

X

A-6000-135 (01193) UEF067

HNF-5448, Rev. 0 Page 1 o f 2

EVALUATION OF THE DRUM TIPPER MECHANISM FOR THE WRAP FACILITY

KJ Le is t Waste Management Federal Services of Hanford, Inc., Richland, WA 99352 U.S. Department o f Energy Contract DE-AC06-96RL13200

EDT/ECN: EDT-623542 UC: 506 Org Code: 32600 Charge Code: AJ60 B&R Code: EW02J16 Tota l Pages: 33

Key Words: WRAP, ARES, REPLACEMENT, LLW, TRU

Abstract : The drum t i p p e r assembly has had numerous problems and has r e c e n t l y f a i l e d . e x i s t i n g system and prov ide recommendations f o r a rep1 acement system.

ARES Corporat ion was asked t o evaluate t h e

** Camrol Bear ing i s a r e g i s t e r e d trademark o f McGi l l Manufactur ing Co., Valparaiso, I N . ** Enid ine i s a r e g i s t e r e d trademark o f Enidine Corporation, New Vork, NV.

Trademarks cont inued on page 2 o f 2.

TRADEMARK DISCLAIMER. name, trademark, manufacturer, o r otherwise, does not necessari ly cnns t i t u t@ o r imply i t s endorsemnt, recanrendation, o r favoring by the United States Govermnt o r any agency thereof or i t s cont ractors o r subcontractors.

Printed i n the Uni ted States o f America. To obta in copies of t h i s docunent, contact: D o c m n t Control Services, P.O. Box 950, Mai ls top H6-08. Richland UA 99352, Phone (509) 372-2420; Fax (509) 376-4989.

Reference here in t o any spec i f i c c m r c i a l product, process, o r serv ice by t rade

A

Release Approval Date' c a . ..

Approved for Public Release

A-6400-073 (01/97) GEF321

HNF-5448, Rev. 0 Page 2 o f 2

EVALUATION OF THE DRUM TIPPER MECHANISM FOR THE WRAP FACILITY

Trademark L i s t Continued from page 1.

** Sealeze i s a r e g i s t e r e d trademark o f Sealeze Corporation, Richmond, VA. ** Schrader Bellows i s a r e g i s t e r e d trademark o f Parker I n t a n g i b l e s Inc.

Wilmington, DE. ** Brand Hydraul ics i s a r e g i s t e r e d trademark o f Brand Hydraul ics Co., Omaha,

NA . ** Vickers i s a r e g i s t e r e d trademark o f Eaton, Corporat ion, Cleveland, OH. ** DE-STA-CO i s a r e g i s t e r e d trademark o f Delaware Cap i ta l Formation, Inc.,

Wilmington, DE. ** Servo i s a r e g i s t e r e d trademark o f Servo Corporat ion o f America, New York,

NY.

HNF-5448, Rev. 0

A C O R P O R A T I O N

EVALUATION OF THE DRUM TIPPER MECHANISM, RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REPLACEMENT, AND ESTIMATED

COSTS

prepared for

Waste Management Hanford Holmes & Narver Contract No. 4407

Report No. 990920101-001 Revision 0

September 1999

prepared by

ARES CORPORATION 636 Jadwin Avenue Suite B Richland, Washington 99352

1440 Chaptn Avenue, Suite 201 * Burlingame. Calltornla 94010 * 650/401-7100 Fax 650/401-7101

A-i

HNF-5448, Rev. 0 A-ii

C O R P O R A T I O N Applied Research 6 Engineerinq Sciences

99RL09 1 8

September 16,1999

Mr. Lee W. Roberts Waste Management Hanford

Richland, Washington 99352 Post Office Box 700 S7-OS

SUBJECT: HOLMES & NARVER CONTRACT NO. 4407 - TRANSMITTAL OF FINAL DOCUMENT

Dear Mr. Roberts:

ARES Corporation is pleased to transmit ARES Report No. 990920101-001, Revision 0, Evaluation of the Drum ripper Mechanism, Recommendations for Replacement, and Estimated costs.

Transmittal of this report completes this task. Thank you for the opportunity to complete this work.

If you have any questions, please call Messrs. Steve Riesenweber or Dave Haring, or me at 946-3300.

Sincerely,

kdrt<&e President and Manager, Richland Operation

RLF/lci

Attachments - as stated

cc: Ben Evans (wlo attachment) James E. Geary Mike P. Lane John R. Weidert

636 Jadwin Avenue, Suite B * Richland. Washington 99352 * 509/946-3300 * Fax: 509/946-6006 E-mail: eresrl~srescorporation.com - Internet' www.erescorporetion.com

Burlingame. California Lafayette. California -Albuquerque. New Mexico * LOS Alamo6. New Mexico Houston. Texas

http://www.erescorporetion.com

HNF-5448, Rev. 0

EVALUATION OF THE DRUM TIPPERMECFd%&~448~ Rev. Report NO. 9 9 0 9 2 0 1 0 1 - 0 0 1 , Rev. 0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REPLACEMENT, AND ESTIMATED COST September 1 9 9 9

Executive Summary

The Drum Tipper Assembly at the Waste Receiving and Processing (WRAP) Facility has been

xoblematic in the past and has recently failed. Since the existing design has proven to not meet the

.eliability objectives, an effort to develop an alternative design was initiated. Investigations of potential

nodifications resulted in several designs being evaluated, and alternatives most suitable for this

ipplication being investigated in depth. The results of these investigations have been included in this

'eport. The recommended design uses a cam roller based linear guide system, driven by a commercially

ivailable ballscrew actuator. The estimated cost for procured and fabricated components is $30,810.

The cost for design, including analysis and revisions to applicable design documentation, is estimated to

)e $ 4 1 , 9 8 0 . By utilizing this alternative, a reliable system will be available to support facility

)perations.

4REs JRWRATlON

A-iii

HNF-5448, Rev. 0

EVALUATION OF THE DRUM TIPPER M E C w , 5 4 4 8 , Rev. 0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REPLACEMENT, AND ESTIMATED COST

Report No. 990920101-001, Rev. 0 September 1999

EVALUATION OF THE DRUM TIPPER MECHANISM, RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REPLACEMENT, AND ESTIMATED

COSTS

prepared for

Waste Management Hanford Holmes & Narver Contract No. 4407

Report No. 990920101-001 Revision 0

September 1999

Prepared by: Dave Haring

Approved by: Robert L. Fritz

Date: + ARES Page i CORFQUTION

HNF.5448. Rev . 0

EVALUATION OF THE DRUM TIPPER MEc"BHh5448. Rev . 0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REPLACEMENT. AND ESTIMATED COST

Report No . 990920101-001. Rev . 0 September 1999

Table of Contents

1.0 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................ 1 2.0 SYSTEM EVALUATION .............................................................................................................. 1 3.0 RECOMMENDED REPLACEMENT ALTERNATIVES AND MODIFICATIONS .................. 2

Subtask 1 - Linear Guide System ................................................................................................ 2 3.1.1 Cam Roller Guide System .................................................................................................. 2

Subtask 2 -Drive Systems ......................................................................................................... 2 3.2.1 Ball Screw Actuator ............................................................................................................ 4 3.2.2 Hydraulic Cylinder .............................................................................................................. 4

Subtask 3 -Rotating Drum Clamp ............................................................................................. 4 3.3.1 Baseplate Orientation .......................................................................................................... 7 3.3.2 Gearbox Lubrication ........................................................................................................... 8 3.3.3 Rotating Drum Clamp Spare ............................................................................................... 8

1.0 ESTIMATED COSTS .................................................................................................................... 8 5.0 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................... 9

3.1

3.2

3.3

4ppendices

4ppendix A Linear Guide System Evaluation

4ppendix B Drive System Evaluation

4ppendix C Cost Breakdown

lRES Page ii OW ORATION

HNF-5448. Rev.0

EVALUATION OF THE DRUM TIPPER M~CHAfdf&ij;5448, Rev. 0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REPLACEMENT, AND ESTIMATED COST


Tables

Table 1. Cam Roller Guide System with Ballscrew Actuator Drive. ........................................................ 8 Table 2. Cam Roller Guide System with Hydraulic Cylinder Drive. ........................................................ 9

Figures

Figure 1 -Cam Roller Guide System ......................................................................................................... 3 Figure 2 - Ballscrew Actuator Drive System ............................................................................................. 5 ?Igure 3 -Hydraulic Cylinder Drive System ............................................................................................. 6 3gure 4. Exploded View of Rotating Drum Clamp Gearbox. .................................................................. 7 C.

4RES Page iii 3RWRATION

HNF-5448, Rev. 0

EVALUATION OF THE DRUM TIPPER MEc~=,5448, Rev. 0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REPLACEMENT, AND ESTIMATED COST


LLW TRU WRAP

Acronyms

low-level waste Transuranic Waste Receiving and Processing

ARES Page iv CORWRATlON

HNF-5448, Rev. 0

EVALUATION OF THE DRUM TIPPER MECHANISM, RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REPLACEMENT, AND ESTIMATED COST


1.0 BACKGROUND

The Waste Receiving and Processing (WRAP) Facility packages Transuranic (TRU) and low-level waste (LLW) at the Hanford Site for shipment to disposal sites. Within the WRAP facility, the Drum Tipper Assembly is a key component of waste handling.

The function of the Drum Tipper Assembly is to grab a waste drum, which is staged on the Drum Transfer Car, and raise it vertically approximately 66-in.within a glovebox. After the sorting table is positioned under the elevated drum, the Drum Tipper Assembly rotates the waste drum 150 degrees, emptying the contents onto the table. This assembly is used in both the TRU and the LLW glovebox lines.

The Drum Tipper Assembly has had numerous problems since startup and has recently failed. ARES Corporation was asked to evaluate the existing system and provide recommendations for a replacement system, taking into consideration concepts previously developed within the WRAP Facility organization.

2.0 SYSTEM EVALUATION

The existing design consists of a vertically mounted dovetail slide and a revolving drum clamp. The layout of the system causes the load to be cantilevered off the slide, resulting in a significant torque being applied to the slide camage. This application of the dovetail slide results in point loading and binding which can excessively load the drive system. In addition, the leadscrew appears to be mounted behind the bearing surfaces, which increases the cantilevered load and the potential for binding. Tightening up the clearances in the slide minimizes the point loading, but results in accelerated material wear and the need for more frequent adjustments.

The drive mechanism for the dovetail slide consists of a leadscrew and brass Acme follower nut. An electric motor and 90 degree gearbox (located outside the glovebox) provides power for the leadscrew. The screw and nut are not enclosed in a bellows assembly and are susceptible to damage from abrasive material contamination. The recent failure appears to be due to the Acme nut threads being stripped. The cause of this failure is most likely due to several factors that include inadequate lubrication, excessive loading due to binding of the slide, and abrasive material contamination.

The rotating drum clamp is a commercially available forklift attachment, designed for this type of application. If installed and maintained properly, this unit should provide many years of reliable service. Currently, however, this is not the case, The rotating drum clamp is currently installed with the baseplate inverted, resulting in the hydraulic motor and gearbox being upside down. In this configuration, the gearbox bearings no longer receive adequate lubrication and could possible fail prematurely.

ARES Page 1 COWORATION



3.0

The task of identifymg replacement alternatives for the Drum Tipper Assembly was divided into the following subtasks:

a

a

a

RECOMMENDED REPLACEMENT ALTERNATIVES AND MODIFICATIONS

Subtask 1 identifies a linear guide system that will maintain the revolving drum clamp assembly in the correct position throughout the full range of vertical travel, Subtask 2 provides optional methods of driving the system, and Subtask 3 provides recommended modifications for improving potential reliability issues associated with the rotating drum clamp assembly.

Discussions on each subtask are provided below.

3.1 Subtask 1 - Linear Guide System

Access to the linear guide system for maintenance or repairs will be very limited once the glovebox is put back into operation due to ALAFL4 considerations. In addition, the guide system will be subjected to contamination in the form of abrasive dust (absorbent materials) and metal fines (lid clamp cutting operations) during operation.

Several guide systems were evaluated for maintaining proper alignment of the loads associated with this application and performing reliably in the expected environment. Details of the various methods evaluated are provided in Appendix A. Following is a description of the guide system most suited for this application.

3.1.1 Cam Roller Guide System

Of the various systems evaluated, a linear guide system utilizing cam rollers is preferred for this application. This arrangement is shown in Figure 1. It can be used with any of the three drive methods described in the following section. The expected loads during operation would result in the cam rollers having an estimated lifespan in excess of 30 years (if adequate lubricant is maintained within the bearing). A relubricatable roller is preferred since the grease in a sealed system may dIy out over time. The guide channel for the rollers would include hardened track strips and a brush seal for keeping out larger debris. In the unlikely event of cam roller failure, the cam roller could be replaced without disassembling the guide system by using access ports located in the guide channel. Adjustable guide rails and four smaller cam rollers would be used to handle the small amount of axial loading that could occur during operations. These rollers could also be replaced without personnel entry into the glovebox.

3.2 Subtask 2 -Drive Systems

Several drive mechanisms were evaluated for raising and lowering the loads associated with this application (details are provided in Appendix B). The following is a description of the two drive systems most suited for this application.

ARES Page 2 COWOWLTION

HNF-5448, Rev. 0



>

GUIDE CHANNEL

CARRIAGE ASSEMBLY

CAM ROLLERS

ROTATING DRUM CLAMP ATTACHMENT RAILS

ACCESS PORTS FOR REPLACING CAM ROLLERS

OUTER GUIDE RAIL REMOVED FOR CLARITY

,

EXISTING GLOVEBOX

GUIDE CHANNEL

CARRIAGE PLATE

TIE-ROD END

BRUSH SEAL

CAM ROLLERS

SECTION A - A Figure 1 -Cam Roller Guide System

$RES Page 3 OWOMTION

HNF-5448, Rev. 0



3.2.1 Ball Screw Actuator

This system would use a commercially available ball screw actuator, mounted outside the glovebox, to drive the carriage assembly as shown in Figure 2. The actuator is similar in appearance to a hydraulic cylinder and is equipped with front seals and a hardened, stainless steel actuator shaft to minimize the chance of contaminants entering the actuator. The unit would also be equipped with a bellows assembly to provide further protection.

The advantage of this type of system is that the highly efficient design results in long life, low drive forces (smaller motor required), and reduced lubrication requirements. The servomotor allows the speed, stroke limits, and operating characteristics to be easily modified. In addition, accurate positioning can be obtained without the use of hard stops, as would be required with a hydraulic system. The actuator is mounted outside the glovebox, thus alleviating the problems associated with performing maintenance or replacement of the actuator. Unlike the hydraulic cylinder, seal wear will not result in leakage of oil into the glovebox.

The disadvantage of this system is that a failure of the ball nut or brake could result in an uncontrolled load drop, therefore, impact absorbers would need to be included in the design. Initial cost for this system is significantly higher than that associated with the hydraulic cylinder option.

3.2.2 Hydraulic Cylinder

This system would use a hydraulic cylinder, mounted outside the glovebox, to drive the carriage assembly as shown in Figure 3. An existing hydraulic unit could be used to supply this cylinder. The cylinder could also be equipped with a bellows assembly to provide further protection rod and shaft seals.

Advantages include reliable operation, minimal additional periodic maintenance, and good accessibility for maintenance or replacement. In addition, expected failure modes would not result in an uncontrolled load drop, minimizing the need for impact absorbers.

The disadvantages include more frequent failures than expected with the ballscrew option (most likely failure is front seal wear resulting in unacceptable hydraulic fluid leakage into glovebox), and position dnf? due to internal system leakage. If not controlled, this position drift will cause problems since the sorting table/delidder trolley rails must be maintained in proper alignment. To compensate for this, a powered latch system, located within the glovebox, will be required to lock the carriage in the upper position.

3.3

The existing rotating drum clamp should provide many years of reliable service in this application if the operated and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s guidelines. The following are recommendations that will improve the reliability of this assembly and facilitate installation of the proposed linear guide system.

Subtask 3 -Rotating Drum Clamp

Page 4



r

T- BALL SCREW BRAKE

1 4" SO X 66" STROKE

BALL SCREW ACTUATOR

L

SERVO DRIVE MOTOR

EXISTING FLANGE WITH ADAPTER PLATE

I TIE-ROD W/SPHERICAL ROD END5

Figure 2 - Ballscrew Actuator Drive System

IRES Page 5 ORPORATION



2” 0ORE X 66” STROKE HYDRAULIC CYLINDER 7 n

EXISTING FLANGE WITH ADAPTER PLATE

Figure 3 - Hydraulic Cylinder Drive System

ARES Page 6 COWORATION

L



3.3.1 Baseplate Orientation

NOTE: Gearbox is shown correctly oriented. The installed configuration is rotated 180 degrees, locating the worm gear bearings above the oil level.

Figure 4. Exploded View of Rotating Drum Clamp Gearbox.

ARES Page I CORPORATION

HNF-5448. Rev. 0



Procurement Fabrication costs costs System Design Costs

$24,726 $1,976 $5,904 Cam Roller Guide System

Ballscrew Actuator System $17,254 $11,284 $1,656

Rotating Drum Clamp N/A $9,900 N/A

1.3.2 Gearbox Lubrication

The gearbox oil level cannot be checked or added to from outside the glovebox. A sightglass and a .emote fill port should be added to allow proper levels of oil to be maintained in the gearbox without naking a glovebox entry.

1.3.3 Rotating Drum Clamp Spare

3rienting the baseplate correctly will require that new hydraulic lines and rail brackets be fabricated. rhis task will be difficult to perform inside the glovebox. A spare drum clamp assembly could be used is a fabrication jig, thereby minimizing the time spent in the glovebox. This assembly could also be ised to mockup the drive and guide system, thereby ensuring proper fit-up and operation prior to nstallation. It is recommended that a spare assembly be obtained to help minimize personnel exposure luring testing and installation of the revised configuration.

Subtotal Total Cost

$32,606

$30,194

$9,990

1.0 ESTIMATED COSTS

rable 1 contains a summary of the material costs associated with the cam roller guide system driven by I ballscrew actuator. Table 2 contains the costs associated with the same guide system driven with a iydraulic cylinder. The time and labor rates used for estimating the cost of fabricated parts is based on )ff-site fabrication. The costs associated with the purchased components were based on vendor list )rites and do not include possible discounts, procurement fees, or sales tax. This estimate does not nclude the costs associated with assembly, testing, and installation. A detailed breakdown of these :os& is contained in Appendix C.

Cost does not include procurement fees, discounts, overheads, or applicable taxes. $72,790

\RES Page 8 ORPORATION

HNF-5448, Rev. 0



System

Cam Roller Guide System

Hydraulic Cylinder System

Rotating Dlwn Clamp

Subtotal Total Cost Procurement Fabrication costs costs Design Costs

$24,726 $1,976 $5,904 $32,606

$18,252 $3,026 $2,304 $23,582

NIA $9,900 NIA $9,990

Cost does not include procurement fees, discounts, overheads, or applicable taxes I I -1566,1781

5.0 CONCLUSION

Access to the Drum Tipper Assembly for maintenance or repairs will be very limited once the glovebox is put back into operation. The assembly will be subjected to contamination in the form of abrasive dust (absorbent materials) and metal fines (lid clamp cutting operations) during operation. Of the various alternatives evaluated, a cam roller guide system driven by a ballscrew actuator is the most suitable for this application. The rotating drum clamp should provide reliable service if installed and maintained properly. Since the existing drum clamp has been operating with the backplate inverted, damage to the gearbox may have already occurred. The gearbox should be inspected for signs of damage and replaced, if necessary.

Alternatives that would utilize a drum tipping sling and the existing overhead hoist are not recommended due to the higher expected dose to extremities and increased potential for accidents. In addition, the existing overhead hoist cannot be easily maintained or replaced. This alternative could be used as a short-term backup if the primary system were to fail.

ARES Page 9 COWOFATION

HNF-5448, Rev. 0

EVALUATION OF THE DRUM TIPPER MECHANISM, Report No. 990920101-001, Rev. 0 September 1999 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REPLACEMENT, AND ESTIMATED COST

Appendix A Linear Guide System Evaluation

IRES Page A- 1 D U O RATION

HNF-5448, Rev. 0



Several linear guide systems were evaluated for suitability for this application. The criteria used for evaluation was any system used must be able to reliably support the loads associated with this application and be compact enough to fit in the available space. The following is a description of each of these systems along with advantages and disadvantages of each.

Al . l

Thompson ball bushings consist of a self-aligning linear ball bearing, mounted in an aluminum housing with seals on each end. This bearing rides on a hardened steel shaft, providing a very low friction, high accuracy guide system. For this application, the system would consist of two parallel shafts, approximately 7-ft long, and a caniage equipped with 4 linear bearings. Bellows would need to be installed on each shaft to minimize the potential for failure due to contamination from abrasives. Since the bearing is a closed type (full circle), the guide shaft can only be supported at the ends. Due to the long guide rod length and the large bending moment applied (-2,500 ft-lb.), guide shaft deflection becomes a concern. Even with the largest readily available size (2-in. diameter shaft), the calculated deflection is still excessive.

Closed Type Linear Ball Bushing System

A1.2

This system is identical to the closed-type described above except that the bearing is open (contains a pass-through slot). This allows the guide shaft to be supported along the entire length by a narrow beam. This alleviates the concerns with deflection, but introduces new problems due to increased chance for Contamination from dust and metal filings due to the split-seal design. Linear ball bushings will fail fairly rapidly if abrasive material gets by the end seals. Bellows are available for this type of arrangement, but generally do not seal well due to being split to fit over the support rail.

A1.3 Track Systems

Several different types of track systems are readily available. These systems generally consist of a c- shaped channel with either a flat, round, or v-grooved profile, and with a rail slider equipped with uheels that match the track. For industrial applications, the slider is typically fitted with a wiper at each :nd to push debris out of the slider path and to maintain grease within the slider. These systems are ideal in applications requiring a compact guide system that is capable of handling radial, axial, and noment loads in a relatively clean environment. Experience with these types of systems in harsh :dusty) environments has not been good. The wiper material tends to wear fairly quickly (especially uhen mounted in the vertical direction due to debris buildup on the wiper face) allowing contaminates to :et into the grease supply. This results in the small diameter wheels binding and subsequent failure of :he slider andor track.

A1.4 Cam Roller System

4 cam roller consists of a bearing encased in a hardened cylinder and fitted with either a threaded stud 3r hollow sleeve for mounting. The roller rides on a fabricated track and is capable of supporting large radial loads. This system is similar in principle to the previously described track systems but has the advantage of not requiring the track to be sealed. Bearing grease is contained within the cam roller and

Open Type Linear Ball Bushing System

ARES Page A-2 :OWOMTION

HNF-5448, Rev. 0

EVALUATION OF THE DRUM TIPPER MECHANISM, mCOMMENDATlONS FOR REPLACEMENT, AND ESTIMATED COST


is not affected by track contamination. In addition, the diameter of the roller tends to be larger than found in typical track systems, reducing the chance for binding.

A1.5 Recommended Guide System

Access to the linear guide system for maintenance or repairs will be very limited once the glovebox is put back into operation. In addition, the guide system will be subjected to contamination in the form of abrasive dust (absorbent materials) and metal fines (lid clamp cutting operations) during operation. Of the various systems evaluated, only the closed type linear bearing with bellows or a cam roller system would be ideal for use in this environment. Unfortunately, the deflection that would occur in the linear bearing guide shafts makes the linear bearing option less than optimal. Based on this, the cam roller system is the recommended linear guide system for this application. This arrangement is shown in Figure 1 and can be used with the drive methods described in the following sections. The cam roller selected has a crowned 2-in. diameter roller with a dynamic load rating of 8,000 Ib. The applied load would be approximately 650 lb. per roller, which results in the roller having an expected lifespan in excess of 30 years (if adequate lubricant is maintained within the bearing). A relubricatable roller is preferred since the grease in a sealed system may dry out over time resulting in potential bearing failure. The guide channel for the rollers would include hardened track strips and a brush seal for keeping out larger debris. In the unlikely event of cam roller failure, the cam roller could be replaced without iisassembling the guide system by using access ports located in the guide channel. Adjustable guide rails and four non-relubricatable cam rollers would be used to handle the small amount of axial loading that could occur during operations. These rollers could also be replaced without major disassembly of the guide system.

4REs Page A-3 - :OWORATION

HNF-5448, Rev. 0



Appendix B Drive System Evaluation

~

4REs Page B-1 )WORATION

HNF-5448. Rev. 0 ~ -~ ~~ ~



Several drive mechanisms are available for raising and lowering the loads associated with this application. The following is a description of each of these systems, along with advantages and disadvantages of each.

B1.l

This system would be similar to the existing arrangement except the leadscrew and Acme nut would be replaced with a recirculating ball nut and associated leadscrew. A motor and gearbox would be located outside the glovebox. A bellows assembly would be installed to keep abrasives from damaging the nut assembly. A remote lubrication station would also be added to periodically add lubricant to the ballscrew. The efficient nature of the ballscrew will result in the load backdriving the ballscrew unless the gearbox is self-locking or a brake is added. The existing motor and gearbox do not meet these criteria and, therefore, will need to be replaced. The recommended replacement system utilizes a heavy- duty gearbox and a servomotor equipped with a holding brake.

The advantage of this type of system is that the highly efficient design results in long-life, low drive- forces (smaller motor required), and reduced lubrication requirements. The servomotor allows the speed, stroke limits, and operating characteristics to be easily modified. In addition, accurate positioning can be obtained without the use of hard stops, as would be required with the hydraulic system.

The disadvantage of this system is that several wearing parts, including the ballscrew assembly, would oe located in the glovebox. This would increase the level of difficulty associated with changing out the >allscrew assembly if failure were to occur. Another disadvantage is that a failure of the ball nut, drive shaft, gearbox or brake could result in an uncontrolled load drop. Impact absorbers would need to be ,ncluded in the design to alleviate this concern.

B1.2 Leadscrew with Acme Nut

he recent failure of the Drum Tipper Assembly appears to be due to threads in the Acme nut being L . It is unclear at this time what caused the failure to occur since the loads applied to the nut at .he time of failure are not known. Possible causes for premature failure include binding of the dovetail ilide, misalignment of the slide with respect to the leadscrew, insufficient lubrication, or contamination ?om abrasive materials. A properly sized and maintained Acme nut could provide many years of .eliable service.

Leadscrew with Recirculating Ball Nut

The existing leadscrew and nut could be retrofitted to the new linear guide system and fitted with a iellows assembly. A remote lubrication station would be added to periodically add lubricant to the eadscrew.

The advantage to using this system is that it would require minimal modifications to the existing drive md control systems.

4REs Page B-2 :ORPOUTION

HNF-5448, Rev. 0



The disadvantages over a similar arrangement using a recirculating ball nut include increased lubrication requirements, higher drive forces, and shorter life. Failure of the Acme nut could result in an uncontrolled load drop, necessitating the need for impact absorbers.

B1.3 Ballscrew Actuator

This system would use a commercially available ballscrew actuator, mounted outside the glovebox, to drive the carriage assembly (as shown in Figure 2). The actuator is similar in appearance to a hydraulic cylinder and is equipped with front seals and a hardened, stainless steel actuator shaft to minimize the chance of contaminants entering the actuator. The unit would also be equipped with a bellows assembly to provide further protection.

The advantage of this type of system is that the highly efficient design results in long life, low drive forces (smaller motor required), and reduced lubrication requirements. The servomotor allows the speed, stroke limits, and operating characteristics to be easily modified. In addition, accurate positioning can be obtained without the use of hard stops, as would be required with a hydraulic system. In addition, the actuator is mounted outside the glovebox, alleviating the problems associated with performing maintenance or replacement of the actuator. Unlike a hydraulic cylinder, seal wear will not result in leakage of oil into the glovebox.

The disadvantage of this system is that a failure of the ball nut or brake could result in an uncontrolled load drop, therefore, impact absorbers would need to be included in the design. Initial cost for this system is higher than the other options.

B1.4 Hydraulic Cylinder

This system would use a hydraulic cylinder, mounted outside the glovebox, to drive the carriage assembly. An existing hydraulic unit could be used to supply this cylinder.

Advantages include reliable operation, minimal periodic maintenance, easy changeout, and lower initial cost. In addition, expected failure modes would not result in an uncontrolled load drop, reducing the need for impact absorbers.

The disadvantages include more frequent failures than expected with the ballscrew option (most likely failure could occur due to front seal wear resulting in unacceptable hydraulic fluid leakage into glovebox), and position drift due to internal system leakage. If not controlled, this position drift will cause problems since the sorting table/delidder trolley rails must be maintained in proper alignment. To compensate for this, a powered latch system, located within the glovebox, will be required to lock the carriage in the upper position.

B1.5 Pneumatic Air Winch

This system would use a commercially available pneumatic winch, mounted inside the glovebox, to drive the carriage assembly. The winch would be equipped with a cable or chain that would connect to the carriage.

ARES Page B-3 CORPORATION



An advantage to using this type of system would be that changeout of the air winch could possibly be done more easily than with the other options. The control system would require less modifications than would be required for the hydraulic system.

The disadvantages include frequent inspections (hoisting and rigging), several single point failures that could result in an uncontrolled drop, high air consumption (80 scfm or greater), relatively high levels of noise, difficulty obtaining accurate positioning, and oil mist discharged into the glovebox.

B1.6 Pneumatic Cylinder

This system would be similar to the hydraulic cylinder arrangement except that a pneumatic cylinder would be used in place of a hydraulic cylinder.

The advantage of this over the hydraulic system is that seal wear would not result in hydraulic fluid entering the glovebox.

Due to the much lower working pressure (100 psig versus 2,000 psig for a typical hydraulic system), the cylinder would need to have a bore size of 7-in. Space limitations above the glovebox prevent a cylinder of this size from being used without performing major modifications to the mezzanine. Using two smaller cylinders can cause binding problems if flows into the cylinders are not properly matched. Another disadvantage of this system is the inability to precisely control position or operating speed without using a costly control system.

B1.7

The existing overhead hoist, located in the glovebox, could be fitted with a commercially available drum rotator sling. This would require the operator to manually attach the sling to the drum and then operate the rotating mechanism (either a chainfall or screw type) to tip the drum.

The advantage to this alternative is that the initial costs are much lower than with the other alternatives.

There are many disadvantages to this alternative since it requires “hands on” operator interface to operate. This will result in higher radiation doses to the extremities and increased potential for accidents. In addition, the existing overhead hoist cannot be easily maintained or replaced. If hoist failure were to occur with a raised drum, lowering the drum would be extremely difficult because there would not be a backup lifting device in the glovebox.

Because of the increased chance of injuries and accidents, this alternative should not be used as the primary method of handling drums in the glovebox. This alternative could be used as a short-term backup if the primary system were to fail.

B1.8 Recommended Drive System

Preliminary evaluation of the drive options indicates that either a leadscrew, equipped with a recirculating ball nut (located inside the glovebox), a hydraulic cylinder arrangement, a servo motor-

ARES Page B-4

Existing Overhead Hoist with Manual Drum Rotator

CORWRATION

HNF-5448. Rev. 0

Rank Criteria Pair-Wise Comparison Normalized

1 Reliability 100 22.5 2 Operability 85 19 3 Safety 80 18 4 Maintainability 70 16

5 cost 50 11

Total 445 100

Results Weighting Factor

-

EVALUATION OF THE D R U M TIPPER MECHANISM, RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REPLACEMENT, AND ESTIMATED COST


Criteria Possible Manual Servo Hydraulic Score Drum Driven Cylinder

Rotator Actuator

iriven ballscrew actuator (located outside the glovebox), or an air winch could be used for this ipplication. A final alternative selection was performed based on the following criteria:

Reliability 1 Operability

Safety 1 Maintenance 1 cost.

Air Winch

The design is very simple such that it will not impact drum-handling oDerations. I 75 ~ 100 80 75

~ ~~ ~

The design is reasonable such that it is very unlikely to impact drum handling operations.

The design is complex such that it would

U2ES Page B-5 DWORATION

~

50 - 74 70 65

0 - 49

HNF-5448, Rw. 0



Criteria

probably impact drum-bandling operations.

Possible Manual Servo Hydraulic Air Score Drum Driven Cylinder Winch

Rotator Actuator

The design is fully automated and simple to operate.

The design is reasonably simple such that it will require only intermittent operator support.

75 - 100 80 80 80

50 - 74

I I requirements should be low. 1 75-100 I I 90 I 75 The alternative is such that maintenance

The design is complicated such that it will require full time operator support.

~~

0-49 40

I Initial Cost

The alternative will provide minimal levels of personnel exposure and/or safety issues.

The alternative will provide normal levels of personnel exposure and/or safety issues.

75 - 100 75

50 - 74 70 65

The alternative has the potential to expose personnel to unacceptable levels of exposure and/or safety issues.

4REs Page B-6 )RWR*TION

~ ~

0-49 30

The alternative is such that maintenance requirements will be moderate.

The alternative is such that maintenance requirements may be high.

~~~ _____

50 - 74 50 70

0 - 49

The alternative is simple and the components are standard such that the initial cost should be less than the other alternatives. 75 ~ 100 90

The alternative is of average complexity md/or the components are standard such

~

50 - 74 60 65 65

HNF-5448, Rev. 0

Criteria

that the initial cost will be within the current estimated cost.

The alternative is complex and/or the components are not standard such that the initial cost may be greater than the other alternatives.

iVALUATION OF THE DRUM TIPPER MECHANISM, &COMMENDATIONS FOR REPLACEMENT, AND ESTIMATED COST


Possible Manual Servo Score Drum DrlVen

Rotator Actuator

0 - 4 9

~ ~ - ~

Criteria Manual Drum

Rotator

Reliability 1,800

’he evaluation of the four alternatives has been summarized in Table B-3. This table lists each ltemative’s score for each criterion, multiplied by the weighting factor, then summed to produce a umulative score for each alternative. Based on its overall ranking, the Servo Driven ballscrew actuator 5 the preferred alternative and will be the most reliable and effective drive system for the Drum Tipper issembly.

~ ~ ~

Servo Driven Hydraulic Air Winch Cy I i n d e r Actuator

1,687 1,575 1,462

Table B-3. Summary of Alternative Comparison Results (Ranked by Total Score’).

Operability -1 A L W S a f e t y

760 1,520 1,520 1,520

540 1,350 1,260 1,170

Initial Cost

TOTAL

Maintainabilitv I1 800 1 1,440 I 1,200 I 1,120 I 990 660 715 715

4,890 6,651 6,270 5,987 ----

Notes: 1. Total Score = (Criteria Weighting Factor) x (Comparative Score)

LRES Page B-7 )RPORATION

HNF-5448, Rev. 0



Appendix C Cost Breakdown

4RES Page C-1 O W RATION

HNF-5448, Rev. 0

Linear Guide and Drum Rotator System with Impact Absorber

Purchased Parts ~

Pan Descnption 1 Quantity I PnceEach 1 Subtotal I Camrol Beanne. 2-111 diameter. crowned I I I I ~~ _. roller, McGill # CCF-2-SB 4 $34 $136 Camrol Bearing, 1.5-in. diameter, crowned roller, McGill # CCF-1 1/2-SB 4 $18 $72 Impact Absorber, 24411. stroke, Enidine

Total Cost Using Existing Drum Rotator Clamp

Total Cost with New Drum Rotator Clamp ($9,900)

Misc. BGcketsTphotoGe, grease l r n i etc.) 5 2 $720

Total Fabricated Parts Cost $5,904 -

S7.880

$17,780

ARES Page C-2 CORPORATION

HNF-5448, Rev. 0

EVALUATION OF THE DRUM TIPPER MECHANISM, &COMMENDATIONS FOR REPLACEMENT, AND ESTIMATED COST


Ball Screw Actuator wlth Servo Motor Drive System I Purchased Parts

Motor, 5,600 Ib. max thrust, 3,000 Ib. 24 vdc brake, 60-in. stroke, position feedback potentiometer, protective bellows and clevis rod end Parker Model: ETBIOO- B02MA8 1 -JCAH- I SOOL

t . _"..."..". ".."

Costs based on a shop rate of: $60.00 Matcnal cost are estimated at: 20% I I I Subtotal I

I Total Cost

Page C-3 >RPORATION

HNF-5448. Rev. 0



Hydraulic Cylinder External to Glovebox

. capacity, De-Sa-Co Model: 868

Total Fabricated Parts Cost

I Total Cost I $5,330 I

4REs Page C-4 ORPORATION

HNF-5448, Rev. 0

EVALUATION OF THE DRUM TIPPER MECHANISM, ?ECOMMENDATIONS FOR REPLACEMENT, AND ESTIMATED COST


Description of Services

I Estimated Design Costs I

Hourly Rate Est. Hours Subtotnl

uired at 60 hourdsheet and 2 sheets affected at 15

ourdcalculation

- . . . affected at 15 hourdsheet) $77.00 I 105 58,085 I

I . . . affectLd at I5 hourdsheet) $77.00 [ 45 $3,465 I

- . .. affected at 20 hourdsheet) $77.00 I 40 $3,080 Perform Supporting Calculations (approximately 2 calculations required at 16 hourdcalculation) $82.00 32 $2,624

Total Ball Screw Actuator Design Cost

Page C-5

$17,254

Description of Services Modify Mechanical Drawings (approximately 7 sheets

Prepare/Modify Hydraulic Drawings (approximately 2 sheets affectedrequired at 15 hourdsheet)

Modify Electrical Drawings (approximately 3 sheets

affected at 15 hourdsheet)

Hourly Rate Est. Hours Subtotal

$77.00 105 $8,085

$77.00 30 $2.310 - . . .

affected at 15 hourdsheet) $77.00 1 45 $3,465 I

Documents

(H) - Digital Library/67531/metadc... · Cognizant Manager ED-7400-172-2 (10/97) 21. DOE APPROVAL (if required) Ctd No. 0 Approved 0 Approved wlwmments 0 Disapproved wlwmments 80-7~172.1