III - University of Idaho



Team Elf Project Proposal

Design of Life-test Fixture for AthroCare

[pic]

Submitted: December 9, 2005

Team:

Tony Giedl

Mary Hamann

Jim Michalk

Naomi Sanders

Brad Watson

Table of Contents

Executive Summary 3

1.0 Background 3

2.0 Problem Definition 3

2.1 Frame 4

2.2 Wand Motion 4

2.3 Pressure Control 4

2.4 Experiment Setup 5

2.5 Reproducibility 5

2.6 Needs 5

3.0 Concepts Considered 5

3.1 Frame Design 5

3.2 Wand Mount 8

3.3 Pressure Control 10

3.4 Angle Adjustment 12

3.5 Tissue Holder 14

4.0 Concept Selection 14

5.0 System Architecture 16

5.1 Frame Assembly………………………………..16

5.2 Wand Mount……………………………………17

5.2 Pressure Control……………………………….. 17

5.3 Angle Adjustment………………………………17

5.4 Tissue Holder………………………………….. 17

6.0 Economics Analysis…………………………………… 18

7.0 Future Work…………………………………………… 19

Appendix A: Motor Specifications 20

Appendix B: Project Specifications 21

Appendix C: T-Slot Specifications 22

Executive Summary

Currently, the life testing of electrosurgical wands is done by hand, making it a time consuming and tedious process. To make this process more automated a senior design team from last year designed an automated test fixture for the wands. Their prototype was unable to test the surgical wands because interference produced by the wand was transmitted through the aluminum frame, causing the motors to be inoperable. The goal of this year’s project is to redesign the test fixture, make it functional, reduce the footprint, and make the test fixture easier to use.

The fixture has been broken down into components areas including: frame, wand mount, angle adjustment, pressure control, and tissue holder. Design concepts have been generated for each component area and a final concept for each component was selected. The final concept design consist of two linear slide assemblies in the same configuration as last year’s design, a free sliding gravitational pressure control, and an adjustable clamp attached to the pressure control. The scotch yoke from last year’s design is eliminated by having one of the stepper motors create the oscillating motion.

This proposal shows the final design concept considered and outlines a plan for future work which will continue in January. According to this schedule, work on detail design and further testing will be the main tasks for start of next semester. Additional research and design work should be done on the tissue holder.

1.0 Background

ArthroCare is a corporation that designs and manufactures tools to be used in the medical field. They have developed a new technology, Coblation, used for the removal of tissue. Unlike standard methods of tissue removal that use radiofrequency signals to cut or burn away the affected tissue, Coblation uses a precisely focused plasma that dissolves the tissue at a lower temperature by breaking apart the bonds on a molecular level. This technology is more precise than other methods of tissue removal and it minimizes the damage to healthy tissue.

ArthroCare makes a device, called an ArthroWand, that utilizes Coblation technology. It is important that each wand they develop be guaranteed for the specified life of the device. Out of every batch of ArthroWands manufactured by ArthroCare, 30-100 of them are hand tested to ensure that every ArthroWand sold is reliable. This is a very time and labor-intensive task.

ArthroCare would like an apparatus that is capable of mechanically testing their Arthro-Wands. This will cut down on the technician’s labor costs and also allow more wands to be manufactured and tested.

2.0 Problem Definition

The purpose of this project is to develop a mechanism that will test Arthro-Wands mechanically. In order to ensure the reliability of the product, the test must mimic the conditions that the wand will observe during an actual surgery. Last year a senior design team, Electro-Life, developed a test fixture for ArthroCare, but it did not fulfill all of the design requirements.

[pic]

Figure 1: Drawing of Last Years Fixture

During an actual tissue removal surgery, the surgeon moves the wand across the tissue in an oscillating motion while applying a minimal amount of pressure on the tip. A typical orthoscopic surgery lasts approximately twenty minutes. The type of wand and the wand angle varies depending upon the type of surgery and the location on the body. The angle of the wand ranges from 0( to 90( depending on the wand type. The test apparatus should mimic the performance of approximately 95% of surgeons.

2.1 Frame

One major flaw in last years design was the frame. ArthroCare wants the size of the footprint cut down to approximately ¼ of last year’s design. This includes minimizing the text fixture frame and the control box. Last years frame was made out of aluminum which acted as an antenna for the radiofrequency produced by the wand during operation. This, in turn, interfered with the stepper motors that controlled the motion of the wand. This problem will be accounted for either in the code or by incorporating a non-conductive material in the construction of the frame.

2.2 Wand Motion

The test apparatus must create a sinusoidal scrubbing motion with an amplitude of 5-10 cm and a speed of 5-15mm/s across the tissue sample. Electro-Life used a scotch yoke attached to a horizontal motion lead screw assembly to create the sinusoidal motion of the wand. Unfortunately, the scotch yoke assembly was difficult to adjust and assemble, and it had a tendency to bind up. We will account for this problem with either an improved scotch yoke, or a different design.

2.3 Pressure Control

The ability of the wand to dissolving tissue is greatly dependent upon the applied pressure. The wand will not perform well if it is applied either too hard, or not hard enough to the tissue. It is important, in order to accurately gauge the reliability of wand, that the test fixture apply the wand at a constant pressure to the tissue. The value of the pressure can float within a range that a wand will observe during service. Last year, the fixture used a spring applied at the opposite end of the wand to apply a constant force. This system contains two flaws. Primarily, the spring didn’t work when the wand was vertical because there was nothing to counter the force of the spring. Secondly, the pressure was not always constant over the tissue. Force in a spring is a function of how far the spring is depressed, but that value changed with the contour of the chicken. We will account for these problems in our pressure control design.

2.4 Experiment Setup

The purpose of our project is to simplify the job of the technician, so the fixture should be relatively simple to set up and operate. The time required to set the wand angle and pressure and arrange the chicken in the holder should be minimized. Also, the interface between the control box and the fixture should be simple to set, allowing the operator to define the test duration and wand speed across the tissues in a matter of moments.

2.5 Reproducibility

The final condition of the project is easy reproducibility of the fixture. If the fixture performs well, ArthroCare may want to produce additional units, so they can test more wands and thus manufacture more wands to be sold. The final report will include a drawing package of all of the parts and detailed drawings showing how the fixture is assembled so that it can be easily reproduced. ArthroCare doesn’t want to spend a lot of money on a device that is supposed to reduce manufacturing costs. The fixture should be relatively inexpensive to reproduce, and be primarily comprised of pre-manufactured parts, so they don’t have to contract a lot of machining work.

2.6 Needs

• Downsize the footprint of the apparatus (roughly 1/4 original size)

• Easy reproducibility

• Short set-up time

• System completes one lifetime without traveling over used tissue

• Capable of accommodating a variety of handle sizes

• Adjustable to a variety of angles and positions

3.0 Concepts Considered

3.1 Frame Design

The current footprint is approximately 1.5ft wide, 2.5ft long, and slightly over 1ft tall. Chicken breast is used as the tissue sample and is clamped into a device that looks like a picture frame without the glass. The current tissue clamp is 8in wide and 4.5in long, making the current frame more than twice the width of the tissue sample and almost six times the length. Last year’s frame is also built out of industrial strength aluminum, which adds needless weight and is unnecessary for the loads that the has to support. In order to downsize the footprint of the frame to the proposed ¼ of the current design, modifications will have to be made to how the current fixture operates, on top of, simply downsizing the frame. Last years design (figure 1) has three motors, the first driving a scotch yoke that creates the oscillatory motion, the second moving the scotch yolk assembly in the x direction, and the third motor incrementing the tray in the y direction.

Three designs were considered when investigating options to downsize the footprint. Our first design (figure 2) is very similar to the original prototype, but without the scotch yoke and the lead screws creating the oscillation. We have already written code that makes a stepper motor oscillate, to prove that this idea is feasible.

[pic]

Figure 2: Last Years Design

| |Last Years Design |

|Pros: |1. Horizontal and vertical motion are de-coupled |

| |2. No moment created from off-centered lead screw |

| |3. Slides and Frame material all stock |

| |4. Eliminates the Scotch Yoke |

| | |

|Cons: |1. Larger Footprint due to tray indexing |

| |2. Frequent direction change of the stepper motors |

| |3. Both the tray and the wand mount observe movement |

In the second design, X-Y Gantry, (figure 3) the tray is held stationary, while the y axis stepper motor is moved to the top of the frame. The oscillation is created by the motion of the x-axis lead screw that moves the wand horizontally across the tissue sample and the y-axis lead screw that shifts the entire assembly back and forth vertically. This design also eliminates the scotch yoke which proved problematic.

[pic]

Figure 3: X-Y Gantry

| |X-Y Gantry |

|Pros: |1. Smaller Footprint than last years (due to stationary tray) |

| |2. Eliminates Scotch Yoke |

| |3. Only one moving assembly |

| | |

|Cons: |1. Frequent direction change on the stepper motors |

| |2. Vertical Lead Screw located to one side creates a torque on the |

| |top lead screw assembly |

| |3. Indexing of the wand is coupled with oscillatory motion |

[pic]

Figure 4: X-Y Gantry Prototype

The final concept (figure 5) considered for the frame, the Toy Grabber, is similar to the X-Y Gantry in that both of the motors will be located on the top of the frame and the tray will be stationary. For the Toy Grabber, both motors’ lead screws will pass through the platform from where the wand will be mounted and each motor assembly will be on sliders positioned on the top edge of the frame. This design will effectively work like a toy-grabbing machine with both motors changing position as the wand moves across the tissue.

[pic]

Figure 5: Toy Grabber

| |Toy Grabber |

|Pros: |1. Decreased moment on the horizontal lead screw assembly |

| |2. Smaller footprint in the vertical direction due to stationary tray |

| |3. Eliminates Scotch Yoke |

| | |

|Cons: |1. Less Space to adjust the position and angle of the wand |

| |2. Larger Footprint in the horizontal direction due to the vertical |

| |motion lead screw and guide rods |

| |3. Frequent direction change of the stepper motors |

2. Wand Mount

The original wand mount was simply a metal sleeve that held the wand handle with a hole that the tip passed through. This mount did not securely hold the wand and it allowed too great a range of unwanted motion. Also, the metal sleeve did not accommodate different wand designs. Again, three designs were considered when exploring improvements to the wand mount.

The first design, the Clamp, (figure 6) is a simple spring-loaded clamp that securely holds the wand in place. It allows for a quick setup and can be bought off the shelf. The disadvantage of the Clamp design is that it may not hold all wand types

[pic]

Figure 6: Clamp

| |Clamp Wand Mount |

|Pros: |1. Securely holds a variety of wand sizes and shapes |

| |2. Can be bought off the shelf with many options |

| |3. Clamp handle easily attaches to the wand mount platform |

| |4. Prevents motion of the wand during testing |

| |5. Quick set-up time |

| | |

|Cons: |1. May not accommodate all sizes of wand handles |

The second wand mount (figure 7) is a vice clamp design that uses a metal sleeve and an internal clamp that can be adjusted with a screw. The Vice Clamp can be designed to handle a wider variety of wand types and it allows for a quick setup.

[pic]

Figure 7: Vice Clamp

| |Vice Clamp Wand Mount |

|Pros: |1. Securely holds a variety of wand sizes and shapes |

| |2. Accommodates all sizes of wand handles |

| |3. Quick set-up time |

| |4. Won’t allow movement of the wand during testing |

| | |

|Cons: |1. Doesn’t easily attach to the wand platform |

| |Can’t be bought off the shelf |

The last wand mount considered, the Christmas Tree Mount, (figure 8) has three screws going into a metal sleeve that hold the wand. The Christmas Tree Mount design is highly adjustable and holds a variety of wands, but the complex setup and difficulty of attaching this to the wand mount platform makes it a less desirable choice.

[pic]

Figure 8: Christmas Tree Mount

| |Christmas Tree Wand Mount |

|Pros: |1. Highly adjustable for a variety of wand shapes and sizes |

| |2. Easily Manufactured |

| | |

|Cons: |1. Difficult to align in the holder |

| |2. May allow motion of the wand during testing |

| |3. Increased set-up time due to the multiple screw adjustment |

| |4. Does not easily attach to the wand mount platform |

| |5. Can’t be bought off the shelf |

3. Pressure Control

Team Electro-Life gave little or no consideration to pressure feedback information. There design did not allow the operator to set the pressure at a desired value nor obtain present pressure values. Pressure information is not only valuable to the test itself, but it also allows the user to know if a critical load is being applied that will cause a failure.

Two concepts have been considered for the pressure control mechanism. The first is a spring load control design (figure 9).

[pic]

Figure 9: Spring Load Control

| |Spring Loaded Control |

|Pros: |1. Works at all wand angles |

| |2. Design fully contained – no separate parts or weights |

| | |

|Cons: |1. Complicated Design |

| |2. Difficult to Calibrate |

| |3. Pressure not always constant |

[pic]

Figure 10: Spring Load Control

After the wand has been inserted and adjusted to the desired angle, pressure assembly has sliders that allow the wand clamp and angle control assembly to be adjusted so that the wand is in contact with the tissue. When the wand tip is in place, the sliders can all be locked and a screw/spring assembly will allow a load to be applied as desired.

The second design, Gravity Load Control, (figure 11) is similar to the Spring Load Control with the exception of using a weight to set the desired load rather than a screw/spring system.

[pic]

Figure 11: Gravity Load Control

| |Gravity Load Control |

|Pros: |1. Works at all wand angles |

| |2. Pressure always constant |

| |3. Easy set-up |

| | |

|Cons: |1. Requires additional parts (needs separate weights to apply the constant |

| |load) |

The major advantage of the Gravity Load Control design is that a constant load is always applied, even when the wand passes over any contours of the sample tissue. In the Spring Load Control design the pressure is not always constant. When the spring is compressed it will apply a greater load, so when the wand traveling up a protrusion a greater force will be applied to the tissue, thus making it difficult to pass over or even burying it in the tissue.

4. Angle Adjustment

Like pressure control, angle adjustment was not considered greatly in last year’s fixture. The different ArthroWands have a variety of tip orientations, meaning that the testing fixture must accommodate a wide variety of wand angles. The first concept considered (figure 12) is a screw controlled adjustment design.

[pic]

Figure 12: Screw Adjustment

| |Screw Adjustment |

|Pros: |1. Quick set-up time |

| |2. Fine adjustment capabilities |

| |3. Easily connected to the wand platform |

| | |

|Cons: |1. Wand tip is only centered at the vertical position |

The Screw Adjustment method uses a threaded rod to connect the wand mount to the pressure control device and allows the wand to rotate to any desired angle. Advantages of this apparatus include quick setup, easy attachment, and very fine adjustment capabilities. However, the tip of the wand would be offset for different wand angles, meaning that another adjustment device would be needed to position the wand tip at the test origin.

The next concept (figure 13) is similar to the Screw Adjustment except that the screw is replaced with a clamp on the pressure control device and a rod connecting to the wand mount.

[pic]

Figure 13: Clamped Adjustment

| |Clamped Adjustment |

|Pros: |1. Fine adjustment capabilities |

| |2. Easily connected to the wand platform |

| | |

|Cons: |1. More complicated set-up |

| |2. Wand tip is only centered at a vertical angle |

Although the Clamp Adjustment allows for fine adjustments and can be easily integrated into the pressure device, it requires a more difficult setup and still has the same positioning problem that the screw control has.

The last concept, Slotted Runner, (figure 14) is a slotted angled runner that would effectively take care of the positioning problem but has limitations on the height differential. The vertical position of the wand is limited to the size of the runner and the total vertical displacement. Another problem with the Slotted Runner design is that it does not accommodate different lengths of wands, whereas the two previous designs can handle variations in wand length.

[pic]

Figure 14: Slotted Runner

| |Slotted Runner |

|Pros: |1. Quick and easy adjustment |

| |2. Wand tip is always centered |

| | |

|Cons: |1. Height differential is limited |

| |2. Does not connect easily to the wand platform |

5. Tissue Holder

Last years tissue holder design is adequate for any of the new designs. The design (figure 15) calls for a frame to be bolted over edges of the test tissue in order to keep the tissue immobilized.

[pic]

Figure 15: Tissue Holder

The single change to the design of the tissue holder is the position. Last year the tissue holder was propped up at a variety of angles and this year it will remain flat while the wand angle is adjusted.

4.0 Concept Selection

The following concept selection metrics show the three component of the project and the various concepts for those components. Each component metric lists the concept selection criteria on the left and the various design concepts across the top. The rankings underneath the concepts show how well each concept fulfills the criteria.

Frame Concepts

|Criteria |X-Y Gantry |Last Years |Toy Grabber |

|Size |Medium |High |Low |

|Manufacturability |Medium |High |Low |

|Reproducibility |Medium |High |Low |

|Smoothness |High |High |Medium |

Pressure Control

|Criteria |Gravity Load |Spring Pressure |

|Constant Pressure |High |Low |

|Manufacturability |Medium |Low |

|Adjustability |Medium |High |

Wand Mount

|Criteria |Clamp |Vise Clamp |Christmas Tree |

|Wand Types |High |Medium |Medium |

|Adjustability |High |High |Low |

|Manufacturability |High |Low |Medium |

|Grip |Medium |High |Low |

The tables above show that last years frame, the gravity loaded pressure control, and the clamp mount are the best choices for their perspective components. Although, these tables alone are not the deciding factor in the concept selection. The flow diagram for the control system is seen below in Diagram 1 and is the control that the final design should follow.

[pic]

Diagram 1: System Flow Diagram

5.0 System Architecture

[pic]

Figure 16: Integrated System Design

5.1 Frame Assembly

The frame assembly consists of the fixture’s physical structure and the linear motion slides that allow the wand to move. The linear motion slide component is vital to the operation of the fixture and it was a source of problems in last year’s prototype. Last years frame design was chosen using the concept selection section.

The final frame design consists of two linear motion devices oriented the same as last years design. One motion device will be positioned above the tissue holder (Slider #1) and the other will be positioned underneath (Slider #2). These two linear motion devices will give the wand the ability to move in the desired sinusoidal pattern across the tissue.

One of the main differences from last year’s design is the material selection for the frame. The major design requirements for the fixture are reproducibility, durabiliby, minimized design, and smooth movement across the tissue. In addition to these requirements, it is also important that the frame be nonconductive so interference does not transmit to the stepper motors. To satisfy these requirements a fiberglass t-slot framing system was selected for most of the frame construction. This t-slot is available off the shelf and comes in varying dimensions.

The linear motion devices will each consist of two slides and one lead screw (all running parallel to each other). These slides can be purchased pre-assembled with varying lengths and different leads on the lead screw. Pre-assembled slides make the fixture much easier to reproduce.

5.2 Wand Mount

The wand mount attaches the wand to the test fixture. The mount must be able to hold a variety of wands securely and be easily adjustable. The previous wand mount was unable to adjust to a variety of wand sizes and it made it difficult to adjust the load. To satisfy the requirement of holding different wand types and easy adjustability, a screwable clamp was selected. A clamp of this type can be purchased off the shelf and it adjusts quickly and easily to hold a wide variety of wands.

5.3 Pressure Control

The fixture must be able to apply constant and ample pressure to the tissue in order to keep the wand in even contact with the tissue. Ideally, this pressure should also be able to be varied. The resulting design concept that our team went with is a gravitational load control. The gravitational load control consists of two vertical slides and a slider that moves up and down on the slides. Weights can be positioned on the slide in order to vary the load. Using gravity to apply the load means the load will always be held constant, regardless of the contour of the tissue.

5.3 Angle Adjustment

The angle adjustment component we chose is a simple threaded shaft with a locknut. The wand mount can be threaded into the slider on the pressure control device. Using a threaded lock nut on the shaft allows the angle to be changed and then locked down by tightening the nut. This solution is simple, versatile, and allows for quick and simple adjustment of the wand angle.

5.4 Tissue Holder

The tissue holder will need to hold the tissue securely and also allow the wand to be positioned easily. To do this, the chicken will be positioned on a flat surface and a tissue frame will be placed over the chicken. In order to allow the wand to be adjusted to a set starting position on the tissue holder (regardless of wand angle), we will design the tissue holder to be able to move before being locked into position on the bottom slider (Slider #2).

6.0 Economic Analysis

Team ELF Budget Proposal

|Expenses Incurred while Prototyping: | |Project |Reproduction Cost: | |

| | |Cost: | | |

|Rollers: | |12.00 |0.00 | |

|Springs: | |1.00 |0.00 | |

|Wood: | |0.00 |0.00 | |

|Programming Cable: | |40.00 |0.00 | |

| | |------------- |----------------------- | |

| |TOTAL: |$53.00 |$0.00 | |

| | | | | |

|Anticipated Expenditures: | | | | |

|Stepper Motors: | |0.00 |48.20 |(2 @ $24.10 each) |

|Software (Dynamic C): | |220.00 |0.00 | |

|Fiberglass T-Slot Framing: | |78.62 |78.62 |(3 @ $26.21 per |

| | | | |4-ft Length) |

|Tissue Holder: | |100.00 |100.00 | |

|Linear Motion Slides | |1400.00 |1400.00 |(2 @ $700 each) |

|Wand Clamp: | |20.00 |20.00 | |

|Pressure Control Device: | |100.00 |100.00 | |

|Weight Set: | |50.00 |50.00 | |

|Hardware (Screws/Bolts): | |30.00 |30.00 | |

|Tissue (Chicken Breasts): | |100.00 |0.00 | |

| | |------------ |----------------------- | |

| |TOTAL: |$2098.62 |$1826.82 | |

| | | | | |

|Labor Expenses: | | | | |

|Total Team Hours: | |1000 | | |

|Cost per Hour: | |$20/hour | | |

| | |------------- | | |

| |TOTAL: |$20,000 | | |

| | | | | |

|Total Expenses for ELF: | | | | |

|Total Prototyping Expenses: | |53.00 | | |

|Total Anticipated Expenditures: | |2098.62 | | |

|Total Labor Expenses: | |20,000.00 | | |

| | |------------- | | |

| |Grand Total: |$22,151.62 | | |

7.0 Future Work.

The future work of the project includes resolving all of the technical and non-technical aspects of the project. This will be all of the work to be completed during the final semester of senior design.

We need to resolve all issues for the final design of the fixture. To do this, we will determine the necessary sizes and dimensions of all of the parts and how they will all fit together. This will entail determining the required size of the tissue sample and tray and then designing everything else to accommodate that. We also have to determine if we are going to order pre-fabricated slides for the frame or if we are going to machine our own. Once we have all of the dimensions, we will be able to order or build the parts and assemble them.

Further research needs to be conducted on how the wand is operated. This research needs to be accomplished by early next semester in order to validate our design concepts.

In order to confirm the idea for the pressure control device, we will build a preliminary prototype. If we discover that this idea does not work properly, we will have to either modify the design or come up with a new solution. We will also build a prototype of the tray to ensure that it will fulfill the requirements.

The coding is also a major issue that still needs to be addressed. Before we can begin to re-program the fixture, we need to obtain a copy of the software.

Work Breakdown Structure: January 2006

|Effort |Task |Owner |Deadline |

|2 |Get Wand Operational (Cut Tissue Samples) |Tony |12/16/2005 |

| | Take inventory of our wands to determine if we | | |

| |need more. Buy tissue samples. | | |

|2 |Prototype Tissue Holder |Naomi |12/16/2005 |

|1 |Research Wand Holder |Mary |12/16/2005 |

| | We should be cutting tissue using last years fixture with a wand holder | |12/16/2005 |

| |and tissue holder attached to it | | |

|3 |Stepper Motor Oscillation (using last years fixture) |Jim |1/19/2006 |

|2 |Prototype Pressure Control |Brad |1/19/2006 |

| | | | |

|1 |Research Cost of Sliders and Slider Options |Mary |1/19/2006 |

|1 |Fixture Calculations (Lead, Pressure Values, etc.) |Mary |1/19/2006 |

|3 |Determine Frame Dimensions/Drawing Package |Brad |1/31/2006 |

Appendix A

Stepper Motor Specifications:

|1125006 |

|  |

|[pic] |Quantity in Basket: 1 |

| |Code: 57BYG084 |

| |Price: $24.10 |

| |Shipping Weight: 1.30 pounds |

| |Top of Form |

| |[pic][pic][pic][pic] |

| |  |

| | |

| | |

| | |

|  |

|Stepper Motor |

| |

|1.8¡ã step angle |

|4 phases |

|12VDC |

|Phase inductance: 20 Ohms |

|600mA |

|22mH phase inductance |

|725 (g-cm) detent torque |

|6000 (g-cm) holding torque |

|2.65" mounting hole space |

|0.2" mounting hole |

|0.250" chaft diameter |

|1.0" shaft length |

|2.2" motor diameter |

|2.0" motor height |

|Weight: 1.3 lbs. |

|Reversible |

|Oil-impregnated bearing |

|High quality |

|Quality carbon brushes |

|Terminal type: solder tabs |

|Voltage range: 1.5 |

|3VDC |

|Shaft diameter: 0.078" |

|Use P/N 161998 for shaft coupler |

Appendix B

Project Specifications:

|  |  |  |  |

| |  |  |  |  |  |

|Need |Ranking |Descriptions |Category |Spec. |units |

|Structural Framing Systems |

| |

| |

| |

|Fiberglass High-Visibility Fractional T-Slotted Framing System |

| |

|A |

|[pic] |

| |

| |

|[pic] |

|B |

|[pic] |

| |

| |

|C |

|[pic] |

| |

| |

|D |

|[pic] |

| |

| |

| |

|E |

|[pic] |

| |

| |

|F |

|[pic] |

| |

| |

|G |

|[pic] |

| |

| |

|H |

|[pic] |

| |

| |

|J |

|[pic] |

| |

| |

| |

|K |

|[pic] |

| |

| |

|L |

|[pic] |

| |

| |

|M |

|[pic] |

| |

| |

|N |

|[pic] |

| |

| |

|  |

| |

|     Similar to our Aluminum Fractional T-Slotted Framing System shown on pages 1490-1491 , except this system is made of |

|nonconductive, corrosion-resistant, high-visibility yellow fiberglass. To get started, we suggest you have a sketch with |

|dimensions of the structure you want to build. Then select the extrusions, connectors, fasteners (when necessary), and |

|accessories you'll need to make that structure. |

| |

|A Extrusions— The basic building blocks of this framing system, extrusions are 1 5/8" square with  3/8" wide T-slots on all |

|four sides. To use, simply attach connectors and other accessories (sold separately) into extrusion T-slots with fasteners |

|(some sold separately). |

| |

|B End Cap— Made of black polypropylene, this cap gives your structure that "finishing" touch. |

| |

|C T-Slot Cover— Made of black polypropylene, this cover is great for concealing wires within the T-slots as well as for keeping|

|dust out. |

| |

|D-G Connectors— Styles D, E, and F require one pack of T-nut fasteners (sold separately). Style G includes all of the mounting |

|hardware you'll need. |

| |

|H T-Nut Fasteners— Made of stainless steel with  5/16" dia. button-head cap screws. |

| |

|J-N Accessories— Furnished with all of the mounting hardware you'll need. |

|     (J) Door handle fits right in an extrusion's T-slot. Made of black thermoplastic. |

|     (K) Hinge mounts on the T-slots of two extrusions. Made of stainless steel. |

|     (L) Leveling mount swivels 15° and has a 3" long stem with  3/8"-16 thread. Load capacity is 1800 lbs. Made of stainless |

|steel. |

|     (M) Panel/wire mesh retainer is made of stainless steel. Attach one end to an extrusion T-slot; the other to your panel or|

|wire mesh (not included). |

|     (N) Universal mounting bracket provides 180° positioning for instrumentation (sensors, lights, and more) weighing 30 lbs. |

|or less. Furnished with two 6 1/4" Lg. x 2" Wd. mounting plates and one 5 3/4" Ht. double socket arm. Attach one plate to an |

|extrusion T-slot; the other to your instrumentation. Made of black aluminum. |

| |

| |

| |

|  |

|Length |

|Each   |

| |

| |

| |

|(A) Extrusion |

|4 ft. |

| 5280T34  |

|$28.22  |

| |

| |

| |

|(A) Extrusion |

|8 ft. |

| 5280T31  |

|  50.40  |

| |

| |

| |

|(B) End Cap |

|—— |

| 5280T49  |

|  1.56  |

| |

| |

| |

|(C) T-Slot Cover |

|8 ft. |

| 5280T48  |

|  6.40  |

| |

| |

| |

|Connectors |

| |

|(D) Joining Plate |

|6 1/2" |

| 5280T33  |

|  5.78  |

| |

| |

| |

|(E) Outside Corner Connector |

|4 29/32" |

| 5280T35  |

|  7.79  |

| |

| |

| |

|(F) Inside Corner Connector |

|4" (each leg) |

| 5280T37  |

|  6.38  |

| |

| |

| |

|(G) 45° Support Bracket |

|6" (each leg) |

| 5280T39  |

|  16.06  |

| |

| |

| |

|T-Nut Fasteners- 4 per Pkg. |

|  |

|Per Pkg.   |

| |

|(H) For Style D & E Connectors |

|—— |

| 5280T57  |

|$5.79  |

| |

| |

| |

|(H) For Style F Connector |

|—— |

| 5280T58  |

|  5.70  |

| |

| |

| |

|Accessories |

|  |

|Each   |

| |

|(J) Door Handle |

|6 3/4" |

| 5280T41  |

|$8.83  |

| |

| |

| |

|(K) Hinge |

|3" Lg. x 2 15/16" Wd. |

| 5280T43  |

|12.29  |

| |

| |

| |

|(L) Leveling Mount |

|3 1/8" dia. |

| 5280T45  |

|19.63  |

| |

| |

| |

|(M) Panel/Wire Mesh Retainer |

|3 1/4" Lg. x 3 1/4" Wd. |

| 5280T53  |

|  8.95  |

| |

| |

| |

|(N) Universal Mounting Bracket |

|7 11/16" Ht. |

| 5280T47  |

|47.48  |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

-----------------------

Slider #2

Slider #1

Spring

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download