|
|
 |
|
Automated Tank Surface Finishing System
The Need
|
The primary motives for automating tank
spraying are increased productivity, reduced cost, and increased safety. The current
finishing techniques are costly and laborious, and they expose workers to significant
health and safety risks. A typical refinishing operation involves sandblasting a tank to
remove old paint and rust, and then painting it to protect the surface for the
environment. This work is performed manually using a painting scaffold or similar device
to access elevated work areas. Heavy equipment and protective clothing are required, and
process byproducts are released into the environment. The procedures are hazardous,
exposing workers to silica dust, harmful paint components, and possible injuries due to
fall. Strenuous working conditions and worker fatigue contribute to an inconsistent
quality of the applied coating.
|
Automated paint sprayer
Paint pattern
|
The Technology
|
|
The system uses a computer-controlled motion
module to refinish the vertical exterior walls of a tank. The module is configurable for
both blasting and painting and utilizes conventional surface finishing equipment for these
processes. An overspray hood is included to reduce contamination of the surrounding
environment during painting. The module attaches to a tank’s wind girts with steel
cables, and its position and velocity are controlled by servo-driven hoists. This
automated system also controls the initialization and termination of the blasting and
painting operations. |
The Benefits
|
Automation of surface finishing techniques for
large storage tanks can yield significant improvements over conventional methods.
Improvements include: better working conditions, enhanced surface finish quality, lower
cost, and reduced environmental contamination. In addition to eliminating or minimizing
safety concerns, labor costs and task duration can also be significantly reduced with an
automated operation. Considering the vast amount of surface area to be coated, the cost
savings can be substantial. Increased productivity can also serve to reduce task duration. The
system replaces one person of the three-person crew generally required to refinish a tank
and removes the operators from the immediate vicinity of the work area. Daily productivity
is increased by 220% for sandblasting and 1000% for spray painting, assuming a 90% duty
cycle. |
Status
|
The University of Texas’ automated paint
sprayer prototype was field tested in January, 1992 at an Amoco pipeline facility in
Alvin, Texas. Since no insurmountable obstacles have been encountered thus far. Research
work continues for its improvement. |
Barriers
|
The advantages realized by automation of the
prototype surface finishing system are encouraging and industry interest in automation is
increasing. The development of the automated paint sprayer is ongoing. Industry interest
has been limited due to capital development costs. |
Points of Contact
- Daily, C.M., Wesley, G.L., Haas, C.T., O’Connor, J. T.,
Thompson, T., Civil Eng. Dept., Univ. of Texas, Austin, TX 78712.
- Traver, A.E., Mechanical Eng., Univ. of Texas, Austin, TX
78712.
References
- Daily, C.M., Traver, A.E., Wesley, G.L., Haas, C.T.,
O’Connor, J.T.,Field Testing of an Automated Surface Finishing System for Large
Diameter Storage Tanks, Automation and Robotics in Construction X. G.H. Watson, R.L.
Tucker and J.K. Walters (Editors) pp. 431-438.
- Thompson, T., Haas, C.T., Daily, C.M., Traver, A.E.,An
Assessment of Automated Surface Finishing Technologies, Construction Congress. pp.
77-83.
Disclaimer Statement
|
Neither the Construction
Industry Institute nor Purdue University in any way endorses this
technology or represents
that the information presented can be relied upon without further investigation. |
IRA17
|
