1 / 17

Team Hot Rod Design Review

Team Hot Rod Design Review. Andy Griff , Bill Crane & Jerrod Warner November 15, 2007 JEB 111, Moscow, ID. Background. Idaho National Laboratory (INL) Hanford fuel assemblies Hot Cell environment Fuel disassembly Cut hex duct Remove fuel elements Containerize. Problem Statement.

brigid
Download Presentation

Team Hot Rod Design Review

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Team Hot RodDesign Review Andy Griff, Bill Crane & Jerrod Warner November 15, 2007 JEB 111, Moscow, ID

  2. Background • Idaho National Laboratory (INL) • Hanford fuel assemblies • Hot Cell environment • Fuel disassembly • Cut hex duct • Remove fuel elements • Containerize

  3. Problem Statement Design, build, and test a device for use in a “hot cell” environment that is capable of separating 169 fuel elements from a hexagonal grid plate assembly.

  4. Mock-Up

  5. Task Analysis • Five Tasks • Securing of fuel assembly • Positioning/alignment • Pin removal • Fin removal • Element removal

  6. Pin Removal (Design 1) • Lever Arm • Pros • Mechanical advantage • Simple operation (MSM) • Cons • Pin and linkage alignment • Size

  7. Pin Removal (Design 2) • Screw Punch (Manual/Pneumatic) • Pros • Ease of use (MSM) • Minimizes impact • Size • Cons • Alignment • Visibility

  8. Fin Removal (Design 1) • Gripper Rail System • Pros • Use of rod contour • Range of motion • Cons • Element spacing • Adjacent row alignment • Alternate gripping

  9. Fin Removal (Design 2) • Grip Fin Rail System • Pros • Balanced force • Existing surface area • Not cantilevered • Cons • Rod/Fin integrity • Precise movements (MSM)

  10. Fin Removal (Design 3) • Gripping Element Ends • Pros • Gripping area • Easy access • Cons • Row clearance • Slipping • Fin binding

  11. Element Removal (Design 1) • Waffle Maker • Pros • Elements secured rigidly • Use of existing fin holes • Cons • Element spacing • Positioning elements (weight)

  12. Element Removal (Design 2) • Fin/Element Combination • Pros • Combines processes • Elements held by contour • Cons • Element spacing • Binding

  13. Element Removal (Design 3) • Push Pin • Pros • Only hold one element • Minimal binding moment • Element spacing irrelevant • Cons • Removing push pin • Pin alignment Push Pin Element Holder

  14. Element Removal (Design 4) • Individual Element Removal • Pros • Eliminates steps • Easy motions • Compact size • Cons • Clearance issues • Rod end support

  15. Axiomatic Design

  16. Schedule/Work Plan • Senior Snapshot (Nov. 30th) • Final Design Chosen (Dec. 5th) • Semester Report (Dec. 7th) • Detailed Design (Jan. 9th-Feb. 15th) • Build Prototype (Feb. 15th-Mar. 28th) • Prototype Testing (Mar. 28th-Apr. 11th) • INL Presentation (Apr. ???) • Engineering Expo (Apr. 25th)

  17. Questions/Ideas (Tom & Jim) • Verify cut location • Pneumatic devices onsite (grippers, motors, etc…) • Table information (dimensions, etc…) • Clearance under sideback • Sideback dimensions • Positioning method/equipment (specific way?) • Fin material strength • Parts from dummy assembly • Positions/Securing ideas?

More Related