Remote Handling Activities and Overview

Remote Handling activities and overview
1
7th November 2013 (Madrid, Ciemat)
By Elena V. Rosa Adame
ITER-DEMO-ISFNT 2013
WP10-GOT-GOT RH-WP1.2

2WP10-GOT-GOT RH-WP1.2
What do we mean by Remote Handling?

3
…Maintenance.
• Thermal loads
• From plasma
• From neutrons
• From instrument losses
• Particle fluxes
• Re-deposition of eroded material on optics, mirrors
• Electro-magnetic
• Disruptions: significant displacements of instruments.
• Neutrons
• Degradation of materials
• Why RH?
• ITER operation contaminates components.
• Beryllium deposition
• Tritium
• Activation (gamma)

The RH is not only manipulators it is much more…(human, interfaces)
“Remote Handling is designed to enable an operator to undertake manual handling work at
a particular work site without being physically present at that location. Unlike conventional
robotics, Remote Handling always involves a human being within the process. The main
handling device is a manipulator, not a robot, because the majority of Remote Handling
tasks need the intuition and intelligence of a human.”
RH Group at JET
The Remote Handling system used for maintenance at the nuclear fusion experiment
includes, transporters, servo manipulators, advanced human machine interfaces, Virtual
Reality, television and a wide range of specialist tools. The technological expertise required
of the personnel to design and operate these types of systems covers mechanical, electrical
and electronic engineering, software, real time control, ergonomics, pneumatics,
hydraulics, welding and cutting.

Things become more complex when the components to
manipulate are heavy and:
• ITER is huge – 10 times larger than JET (estimated 15E6
components, scale of RH unprecedented, diversity of RH
system)
• ITER is a pressurised nuclear facility
• ITER is a new, international scientific cooperation
The RH is not only manipulator it is much more…(human, interfaces)

• Starting point: Maintenance Strategy-Input from
RAMI
• When: Planned or not planned
• What: Which components
• Where: VV, port, maintenance facility
• How: manual or with RH
• Perform analysis with CAD, VR. Check feasibility,
resource usage
• Effort (time) and maintenance facility
occupation
• Spare parts to be kept in stock
• Tooling
• Intermediate storage & logistics, waste
• Input to formal RH compatibility review
• Iterate to increasing detail corrsponding to design
review goals
• OSD validation using virtual mockup
RH Compatibility Analysis

• PDF:
• Provide context
• Design reference
• High level description
• Physical properties
• Plant condition
• Plant interfaces
• RH features
• Task overview
• Critical issues
• Revision history
• Approval
• TDF:
• Objetive
• Start point
• End point
• Assumptions
• Sequence (access,
stability)
• Tool concepts
• Issues
• Approval
• OSD:
• Sequence detail, time
estimates
• Operator roles,
synchronization points
• Tool concepts, hazards and
safety issues
RH Compatibility Analysis

ISFNT 2013
• Plenary sessions: Road Map and DEMO mainly
• Parallel sessions:
• Blankets technology (50 % ITER, 50 % DEMO)
• VV (70 % ITER, 30% DEMO)
• Safety issues and waste management (50 % ITER, 40% DEMO, JT60SA)
• Material engineering for FHT (ITER, DEMO and fusion in general)
• Nuclear System Design
• First wall technology
• Inertial confinement
• Repair and Maintenance (50%ITER, 50% DEMO)
• Poster session (Reair and Maintenance): 50 % ITER, 35 % DEMO, 15 % IFMIF
• AMF in DEMO (logistic, timing, cost…)
• Pipe connections (JET /DEMO)
• IVVS (ITER)
• Divertor/blankets maintenace
• Upper port plug (ITER / DEMO)

9
Reports , additional training and dissemination of the results
ID Name Expected Date (from 1st December 2011)
D1.1 Technical Specification Document (TSD) 1-2 months
D1.2 Quality Plan (QP) 4 months
D1.3 System Requirements Documents (SRD) 10 months
D1.4 Conceptual Design Document including Digital Mock-up 16 months
D1.5 Detailed Design Document 34 months
D1.6 Final Report of Design 36 months
Publications/Conferences
• Functional Requirements and Alignment of the UPP and CPEHS for ITER. Technofusión (June 2012, Madrid) 
• Progress on the interface between UPP and CPRHS Tractor/Gripping Tool for ITER, in Fusion and Engineering and Design
(Elsevier). Reference FUSION6744. SOFT conference (September 2012) 
• Gripping tool for the ITER UPP RH. ISFNT conference (September 2013, Madrid)
Courses/Workshops
• Project Management and Quality Assurance and Mechanical Design and Control (March 2012, Tampere). 
• 6th Karlsruhe International School on Fusion Technologies (September 2012, Karlsruhe). 
• PUREsafe workshop (October 2012, Madrid). 
• Robotics, Telerobotics and Interfaces for RH (March 2013, Paris). 
GOT-RH-Programme. ITER

According to the TSD, QP, SRD and CDD, the object of the project is: “To design the RH tools acting in the interface between
UPP and CPRHS and their related mechanical interfaces” when the TCS is docked in the “docking pins” of the building and the
bioshield is already extracted. That is the confinement between the cask envelope and the port duct extension is guaranteed
and the tractor has access to the plug’s bottom and the plug’s flange.

After our last meeting with Darren Locke (F4E) the goal is rethought:
• The object of the project is: “To design several RH gripping tools acting in the interface between UPP and CPRHS and their
related mechanical interfaces”.
• Why?: because it is currently assumed that the cutting, sealling and bolting operations will be carried out manually.
• The gripping operation is the only one that is going to be carried out remotely due to the cask/tractor/gripping tool would
not allow access of a human operator to manually connect/disconnect plug and tractor.
c
 

… The conceptual design of the interface between UPP and
tools for plug RH insertion/extraction….
Extraction Force: ∽100kN
Insertion Force: ∽30 kN

Data input/kinematic and friction study conclutions
• To absorb the the 0’1 ͦ of misalignment between the port duct and port cell rails,
there is a total clearance of 10mm between skids and rails. Adjustable wedges are
manually installed according the ITER documentation. The assumed friction
coefficient between skids and rails is 0’3.
• After the kinematic/friction study, the highest relative misalignment between plug
axis and tractor axis is ± 0’523 ͦ in the rail plane. That is, the tractor sees the relative
displacements of ± 16’5 mm and ± 4’1 mm of the point centered at the plug bottom
interface.
• The friction forces on the “xy”
plane (Fix) due to the misaligment
of foces are small in comparison to
the friction forces due to the plug
weight (Fixy).
• It is recommended to reduce the tolerance of the skids to 5mm. The
3’8 mm is the minimum required tolerance to absorbe the
misalignment between rails. In addition, the distance between plug
wall and VV port components is 25 mm .
• Also, it is recommended to give a curved shape to the inner side of
skids to avoid cutting edges and facilitate extraction. The installation
of adjustable wedges could be avoided if there is a good connection
between rails.
Double curvature on inner side of skids
Skid to limit the plug turning
Skid to align the plug on the rails

14
Previous concepts for the gripping tool
x
y
z
Joint between GT and plug interface
Joint between GT and tractor interface
Gripping Point
(GP)
• Only one gripping point. This reduces the risk of jamming during
extraction/insertion and makes connection/disconnection faster.
Analogy with railway couplings (one connector between train cars
instead of two).
• The gripping tool is composed of three parts:
- the gripping tool part connected to the plug interface
- the gripping point
- the gripping tool part connected to the tractor interface
• The part of the grippint tool placed in the plug interface is connected
hand on. (F4E input)
• The gripping tool has to allow “y/z” displacements in the gripping point
(± 20 mm, ± 5 mm) and it has to support 100/30 kN in the plug
extraction/insertion.
• The gripping tool should avoid the need for force feedback.
• The 0’1 ͦ of misalignments between port duct and port cell does not
produce lineal traslation in the GP. The gripping tool should allow small
relative torsional movement between plug and tractor. This is achieved
by tolerances in the GP.
• The number of sensor onboard the TCS is very resticted. The gripping
tool should rely on visual control as much as possible.

GT 1: TowHitch
• The tool connection/disconnection is carried out
in the horizontal plane.
• The GP displacements in the horizontal plane
are allowed by two turning joints.
• The GP displacements in the vertical plane are
allowed by tolerances between hitch and and
end-effector.

GT 1: TowHitch
±5mm
• The tractor rested on the rails approaches the plug and the
cone structure of the end-effector pushes slightly the end of
the articulated arm (hitch).
• The cone structure drives the hole of the hitch to the GP and
the shock absorber buffers the push.
• The hitch is in the right position for the rod to be lowered.
This position can be verified and validated through visual
control (e.g. marks on the hitch) or, if possible, through a
force and/or position sensor.
• The stepper motor 1 turns the cam and the rod goes down
locking the hitch. The motor shaft is locked (holding torque).
• It is checked that the rod is lowered either trough visual
inspection (no cover can be installed in this case) or, if
possible, by a position sensor. This means the hitch is locked
by the rod and the tractor is ready to push the plug.
• The tractor starts to pull from the plug and the shock
absorber buffers the pull.
• The sensor force (if available) verifies the tractor is pulling
the plug and it gives information about the load during the
extraction.

GT 2: Mushroom-Hoop
in the vertical plane.
• The GP displacements in the vertical/horizontal
plane are reached by tolerances in the end-
effector.

GT 2: Mushroom- Hoop
• The tractor approaches the plug until the painting
marks that indicate the right tractor position to
start the connection are reached (visual control).
• Visual control of the mushroom grip under the
Hoop rear part and turning the motor 1 (turning
the Hoop).
• After introducing mushroom grip through the rear
part of the Hoop, tractor moves backward until
mushroom grip reaches the front part of the Hoop.
• Visual validation of the right connection in the GP.
• The tractor starts to pull from the plug and the
sensor force, if available, verifies the right plug
extraction.

GT 3: TwistLock
• The GP displacements in the vertical/horizontal
plane are allowed by clearances between end-
effector and plug.

GT 3: TwistLock
• The tractor approaches the plug until the painting marks
that indicate the right tractor position to start the
connection are reached (visual control).
• The tractor introduces the twist-lock inside the hole.
• The shock absorber buffers the push and the sensor force,
if availabe, provides information on the pushing force. The
gripping position is verified and validated visually with the
help of painting marks and, if available, through a sensor
position.
• The motor twists and locks the twistlock shaft. This
position is verified and validated visually and by the motor
command signal.
• The tractor starts to pull from the plug and the shock
absorber buffers the pull. The sensor force, if available,
gives information about the pulling force.

GT 4: Mushroom-Plate
• The GP displacements in the horizontal plane
are allowed by two turning joints.
• The GP displacements in the vertical plane are
allowed by tolerances in the end-effector.

GT 3: Mushroom-Plate
• The tractor approaches to the plug and pushes the
plug.
• The wedge shaped feature in the articulated plate
drives the mushroom grip to the GP. The shock
absorber buffers the push and the force sensor, if
available, identifies if the applied tractor force is
suitable.
• It is checked that the grip is in the connection position
through visual inspection or, if possible, by a position
sensor.
• The motor turns the cam and the rod locks the
mushroom grip.
• It is checked that the rod is engaged through visual
inspection, through the motor signal and, if possible,
trhough a position sensor.
• The tractor pulls the plug and the shock absorber
buffers the pull. The sensor force, if available, gives
information about the load extraction.

Conclutions and further works:
• RAMI analysis of the gripping tool. For that, the reliability requirement for the UPP is needed as input.
• Structural evaluation of the tools. Assessment of whether the disadvantage of excentricity of the load in the GP is
more important than the advantage of fast connection and simplicity associated to clearances in the GP (no need for
alignment in the end-effector).
• Dynamic study of the tool .

Other Concepts of Gripping Tools that have been rejected:
• The displacements in the tool GP (±20mm, ±5mm) are
reached by clearances. The tool connection/disconnection
and the movement of the fastener is carried out in the
same plane (horizontal). Therefore the geometry of this
tool is quite simillar to GT4 “Rod-Plate”.
• In contrast, The closing system based on springs and
cables is less reliable than the rod and cam and the closer
trajectory needs much space.

reached by double turning joints, like GT1 and GT4.
• The tool connection/disconnection and the movement
of the fastener is carried out in different planes.
• Tool more complex than GT1 without offering a
significant advantage.
• The GP needs double alignment (in horizontal and
vertical plane)

reached by two turning joints.
• The tool connection/disconnection and the movement
of the fastener is carried out in the same plane
(vertical).
• The GP has to be aligneed in the horizontal/vertical
planes. Tool more complex than GT2 without offering a
significant advantage.

• This concept (Janney or other train couplers) was not
selected due to the complexity associated to inserting a
pin in the GP locking tractor and plug. In addition,
recovery from failure (e.g. jamming) in the pin
actutation system would be complex.
• The tool is more complex than the presented ones
without offering any significant advantage.

28
RH Group at Ciemat: Elena V. Rosa
• WP13-DAS07-RH Task 08: Active Maintenace Facility
• WP13-DAS07-RH Task 09: Service Joining Technology (in cooperation with Iván Fernández)
WP13-DAS07-EFDA tasks. DEMO
RH Activities and Overview

29
WP13-DAS07-Task 08: AMF. DEMO

30
Reference document: Thomas J., DEMO Active
Maintenance Facility. EFDA_D_2L6NLS. Final
report for WP12-DAS06-T04 (2013).

31RH Activities and Overview

32
Description of the individual components (WCLL)
WCLL blanket modules design developed by CEA (Aubert J., In-Vessel Components Design and Integration. EFDA_D_2JNFUP. Final report
for the WP12-DAS02-T03 (2013)).
The blanket modules weight estimated in EFDA_D_2L6NLS does not correspond with the estimated value in this
task (even considering a packaging factor of 0.8)

33Ciemat Activities and RH Overview
Description of the individual components (WCLL)
WCLL outboard module 2 (equatorial plane).

34
Packing factor: 0.8 (the module 2 is the highest module. A reduction factor to correct the MMS
weight is considered ).
Eurofer density: 7750 kg/m3
Tungsten density: 18700kg/m3

35
The main goal of the active components disassembly is to automate the operations as much as possible:
Fixed and controlled geometrical positions (components and RH systems) in the maintenance room (like in an automatized
production line).
For blanket dismantling, a workbench preliminary design is proposed:

36
RH equipment. Blanket working bench.

37
Blanket dismantling operations
Placing of the MMS in a workbench to be manipulated (possible adaptation of the design to be inserted as part of the workbench) .
Disconnection of the plugs of the upper pipes of the blanket.
Extraction of the remaining water from the pipes and manifolds (e.g. using vacuum or pressurized He) (tritiated water must be stored and
processed).
Cutting of the back support structure.
Cutting of the welded joints between the modules iv_1, iv_2, iv_3, iv_4 and the back support structure (we assume that the design of this
cover will allow being disassembled).
Extraction of the cut back support structure and insertion in the storage package to be transported to the waste and recycling room.
Repetition of the process until the complete disassembly of the back support structure.
Cutting of the inlet/outlet pipes of each module and insertion in the package to be transported (according to the tables, each OB blanket
module has 48 pipes).
Cutting of the manifolds and insertion in the storage package to be transported to the waste and recycling room.
Individual modules operations. They can be carried out in parallel or one after the other (the dismantling of the module maybe could be carried
out in the waste and recycling facility (TBD).

38
WP13-DAS07-Task 09: Service Joining Technology. DEMO
Main issue:
Spring reliability (possibility of
embrittlement due to high neutron &
gamma doses; performance at high
temperature).

39
Springs vs. radiation accumulated dose
“DEMO operational concept description” (2LCY7A):
∽ 3.9-5.5 fpy
∽ 13-18.3 CY
“Neutronic study to shield the UPP of DEMO” (EFDA_D_2D5TAJ):
Shielding of 0.2 m: fluence rate decreases from 2·1012 n cm-2 s-1 to 2·1011 n cm-2 s-1. Shielding material: based on
stainless steel borated 2% (ASTM-A887-89) to 60 % plus H2O to 40 %.
Considering an average time of 10 y between blanket replacement, the specific neutron dose in the connector
location is 6.3072·1023 n/m2 < 1025 n/m2 (rough approximation).
The accumulated radiation dose (absorbed) must be compared with the maximum radiation dose accepted by COTS springs.
10 years

40
Springs vs. temperature
Thermal compatibility of candidate materials <500 ͦC ∽932oF:
Inconel
Steel XC 80 (AISI 1074-SAE): used for the inner spring of
Helicoflex seals.
Quick spring-geared triple hook: requirements seem to be separately
fulfilled  performance considering both phenomena after 10
years of operation?

41
Alternative design: Quick Geared Triple Hook
Advantages:
No springs.
Mechanical connection/disconnection with only one operation: translation of
the cover along the pipe axis direction.
Synchronization of the three hooks.
The gears hold the position of the connector (upper and lower parts).
Disadvantages:
Reliability of the gears at the end of the maximum blanket maintenance
period (>10 y).
Out of the auxiliary
system

42

43
Capillary flow modeling
First stage: 2D axisymmetric analyses.
FEM model: geometry focused on the gap between the upper and the lower Ni-200 parts (0.1 mm, according to the American
Welding Society recommendation).
Initial conditions: temperature map from previous electromagnetic-thermal analysis (theating=20 s).

44
R&D needs towards manufacturing and testing a mock-up
Preliminary identification of requirements for a detailed design.
Development of experimental work to characterize key parameters affecting the performance of the connector:
Eurofer/Ni-200 brazability.
Filler metals spreadability.
Magnetic & thermal properties.
Tritium transport parameters.
Temperature maps (nuclear heating) in the upper ports.
To fix reliability objectives.
Influence of high neutron dose (accumulated & rated) on the materials behaviour.
Assessment on manufacturing methods  detailed design phase.
Further development in the Final Report.

Thanks
45
7th November2013(Ciemat,Madrid)
Elena V. Rosa Adame (elena.rosa@ciemat.es)
Acknowlwdgements to Gerardo Veredas for his technical support in Catia.
www.ciemat.es

Remote Handling Activities and Overview

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

Destacado

Destacado (11)

Similar a Remote Handling Activities and Overview

Similar a Remote Handling Activities and Overview (20)

Último

Último (20)

Remote Handling Activities and Overview