1. Air Products Reactor Catalyst Changeout Daniel Brisach, Nick Dobies, Laura Elliott, Chris Reed, Janessa Smith

2. Presentation Agenda  Project Objectives and Scope  Background  Concept Solution  Cost Analysis  Summary  Questions and Discussion

3. Project Objective The objective of this project is to develop a more effective way for operators to load the catalyst used for the production of TEDA into the main reactor.

4. Project Scope  Design a system to load 18 drums of catalyst into the TEDA reactor  Revise the Safe Work Practice of the reactor catalyst changeout process

5. Current Process  Hoist with carriage

6. Current Process  Manual dumping with a mopping bucket

7. Customer Wants 1.Ergonomic 2. Fast Changeover 3. One Man Operation 4. Low Complexity 5. Ease of Repair

8. Metrics & Target Values Metrics Target Values Speed of Process 12 man hours Cost of Implementation Less than $15,000 Footprint size Less than 8’ x 8’ Ease of Operation Physically & Mentally Simple Resistance to Ambient Conditions Yes Resistance to Catalyst Yes Electrical Rating Class 1, Div 2 approved Number of Required Operators 1 Special Tools No Special Training to Operate No Special Training to Repair No Number of Pinch Points 0

9. The Design Drum is loaded and secured to cart. Cart is winched up the track. Cart stops once in pouring position. Barrel empties via linkage engagement using pistons.

10. Components  Track (rail)  C3x6 Steel C-Channel  Can be cycled indefinitely under normal operating conditions  Custom fabricated

11. Components  Track Support  2” x 2” square tube  Can be cycled indefinitely under normal operating conditions  Custom fabricated  Accommodates pulley system

12. Components  Pulley System  Guides and powers the cart throughout its path of motion  Custom pulley and winch, some stock components

13. Components  Cart  Can cycle indefinitely under normal operating conditions  Custom fabricated  Facilitates dumping motion

14. Validation  Fabricated components were designed for infinite fatigue life.  All stock parts have a high factor of safety.  Favored safety when assumptions were required.

15. Prototype  Tested pouring trajectory with respect to the manhole

16. Results  Successfully emptied catalyst into model manhole with zero waste  Determined optimum positioning between rail and manhole  Determined that 90° of tilt would be necessary to empty entire drum  Drum cone did not require a valve

17. Results  Prototype Test Prototype Test Prototype Test

18. Benefit to the Sponsor  A safer and more ergonomic process  Reduction of reactor downtime by approximately 24 hours  Reduction of man-hours from 36 to 9  Labor savings of about 100 hours/year

19. Cost Analysis  Total: $14,483  Rail and support: $1787  Cart: $2401  Winch, pulleys, pneumatic supply: $6395  Drum cone and collar: $1400  Safety fence: $500  Labor: $2000  Total without cone: $13,083

20. Current Status  Successfully designed and validated our best concept.  Analyzed budget and installation costs and sources.  Closed the loop through sponsor feedback.  Ready to Celebrate.

21. Going Forward  Deliver design to Air Products so the implementation path may chosen.

22. Acknowledgements  Our sponsor – Air Products  Our advisor – Dr. Wilkins  Dr. Glancey  Steve Beard  Jeff Bupp – Metal contracting  Motor Pool personnel

23. Questions ?