on-line sorting technologies for cca treated wood july 24, 2001
TRANSCRIPT
On-line Sorting Technologies for CCA Treated Wood
July 24, 2001
Objective
To design and implement an automated system to effectively sort CCA-treated wood from other wood types at C&D facilities
Project Tasks
Task 1: Construct Shelter
Task 2: Construct Conveyor
Task 3: Lab Test and Develop Detector
Task 4: Install and Field Test Conveyor & Detector
Task 5: Operate Sorting System and Document Performance
Description 2000 2001
M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S
Task 1: Construct Shelter X
Task 2 Construct Conveyor X
Task 3: Develop Detector X X
Task 4: Install/Test X
Task 5: Operate X
Environ. Cert. & Scope X
Progress Reports X X X X
Final Report X
SHELTER
Participants
• Metal shelter design, fabrication and assembly – Trident
• Concrete slab design – Sarasota County• Concrete form, control room – Meyer and
Gabbert• Concrete pour, anchor bolts and project
management – Anderson and Ellis• Electrical – Claxton Electric
Pull permit, construct concrete
form, electrical
Permit Review by BDAnd Zoning
6 Wks
1.5 Wks
1 Wk
Pour concrete and allow for curing
Permit application completed and submitted to building department (BD)
Delivery and assembly of
shelter
Schedule and Timeline
October
18 25
November
9 16 30
December
8 18 30
2+ WksPull permit,
construct concrete form
Permit Review by BDAnd Zoning
6 Wks
3 Wks
1 Wk
Pour concrete and allow for curing
Permit application completed and submitted to building department (BD)
Delivery and assembly of
shelterSchedule and Timeline
October
18 25
November
9 16 30
December
8 21 27 29
3 days
January 2001
5 8
Electrical conduits installed
***Control room and final electrical wiring installed on January 23, 2001
Shelter Completed in January 2001• Interior control room built with recycled
materials (from on-site) by Meyer and Gabbert
• Electrical installation will continue with wiring for conveyor and control room
Control Room
Control Room
CONVEYOR
CCA-TREATED
WOOD
INCLINE CONVEYOR
OT
HE
R W
OO
DT
YP
ES
RO
L L- OF
F
30’2.5’
4.5’2.5’10’10’26’
5’
10.5’ Horizontal Guideto Align Wood
1’
Electric Panel for Conveyor
ROLLERCONVEYOR
BELTCONVEYOR
40’
North
IncomingMixed Wood
SPUR CONVEYOR
7’
Roof SupportColumn
10’45o
4’
Shear Arm
Conveyor Layout: February 6, 2001
ControlRoom
Conveyor – Cross Section
Ta b le Ro lle r C o nve yo r Be lt C o nve yo rInc line d
Be lt C o nve yo r
Ro ll-o ff
12 ’
305’ 10’ 15’
3 ’
O
XRF De te c to r
La se rC o nve yo r, 5’ wid e
Removable Roller
Spur Conveyor
Mounting For Shear Arm
Wood Sort
• Pallet Study 100 pallets tested and 0 were CCA-treated
• Wood Sort3 construction piles and 1 demolition piles were sorted
Wood Sort
Wood Sort
Waste Pile 1
Waste Pile 2
Waste Pile 3
Waste Pile 4
DETECTORS
laser
x-ray
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
320 340 360 380 400 420 440 460
Laser Induced Breakdown Spectroscopy (LIBS)
PulsedLaser Atomic
EmissionCollection
FiberOptic
Spectrometer
Laser InducedPlasma
WoodSample
Line position provides species identification
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
320 340 360 380 400 420 440 460Wavelength (nm)
Rel
ativ
e In
tens
ity (
a.u.
)
Wavelength (nm)
Inte
nsi
ty Ca
Cr
Ca
Ca
Field Unit
Spectrometer
Laser PowerSupply
Nd:YAG Laser1064 nm 200 mJ
DelayGenerator
Fiber Optic
FlashlampTTL Sync
Delayed TTL Sync
Power, Q-Switch Sync, Cooling Lines
MultichannelOutput Board Conditional
TTL Output
StrobePower Supply
Sample
Spectra
10 ns Pulses at 2Hz
TTL Output
Plasma
Focused Emission
Strobe Array
Mirror1064 nm
BroadbandPiercedMirror
FocusingLens
(355-532 nm AR)
FocusingLens
(1064 nm AR)
July 3rd Field Trial
• Increased the internal spectrometer gain
• Conducted sorting trial to determine:– Accuracy of the detector– Accuracy of the human observer
• Single-shot spectra collection– Determine thresholds and accuracy
Chromium Peak and Base Intensities
75
125
175
225
275
325
375
425
250 260 270 280 290 300
Sample
Inte
ns
ity
(a
.u.)
Base
Peak
Average Peak-to-Base Ratios
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Sample
Pe
ak
to
Ba
se
Ra
tio
Treated
Untreated
0
2
4
6
8
10
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Sample
Pe
ak
to
Ba
se
Ra
tio
Untreated
0
2
4
6
8
10
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
Sample
Pe
ak
to
Ba
se
Ra
tio
CCA Treated
Peak-to-Base Ratios on a Shot-by-Shot Basis
Single-Shot Analysis
Peak Width Separation ThresholdMean Mean P/B Ratio
1539 5 Pixels 3.98 1.44 1.69 0.35 0.50 2.23
1 Shot 5 Shots 10 Shots 1 Shot 5 Shots 10 Shots1539 5 Pixels 91.6% 96.7% 100.0% 95.2% 96.7% 98.9%
CCA Treated Untreated
5.42
2.04
2.54
1.34
3.98
1.69
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
CCA Treated Untreated
Pe
ak
-to
-Ba
se
Ra
tio
Mean
Separation
Mean
Mean1539 5 Pixels 3.98 1.44 1.69 0.35 0.50 2.23
Peak Width1 Shot 5 Shots 10 Shots 1 Shot 5 Shots 10 Shots
1539 5 Pixels 91.6% 96.7% 100.0% 95.2% 96.7% 98.9%
CCA Treated Wood Accuracy Untreated Wood Accuracy
Analysis of Results
• Flexibility of the LIBS detector– Settings can be optimized for extremely rapid analysis
and accurate analysis– Different settings for different disposal paths
• Field trials demonstrate:– Accuracies that would allow burning or mulching of wood
identified as untreated– Identification of painted wood– Can accurately differentiate CCA from alternates
X-Ray Fluorescence Technology
• Proven to work well and has been used extensively by many wood treating plants to test retention levels.
• Standardized by the AWPA.
• Using the Spectro/Asoma model 400 unit (different from the wood treatment industry).
Theory of X-Ray Fluorescence• Incident X-ray from the
analyzer strikes an electron occupying the lowest shell
• Electron is ejected• An upper-shell electron
drops down to fill the vacancy
• X-ray characteristic to this elements’ energy is emitted
Incident X-Ray
Ejectede-
EmittedX-Ray
Transitionede-
Nucleus
XRF Field Photos
¾”
Treated vs. Untreated Wood
0
100
200
300
400
No paint Thompson'sWaterseal
Oilbased paint WoodPreservative
WaterbasedWood Stain
WaterbasedExterior Paint
As
Co
un
ts
Treated
Untreated
Dry vs. Wet Treated Wood
0
100
200
300
400
No paint Thompson'sWaterseal
Oilbased paint WoodPreservative
WaterbasedWood Stain
WaterbasedExterior Paint
As
Co
un
ts
Dry
Wet
Dry vs. Wet Untreated Wood
0
20
40
60
80
100
No paint Thompson'sWaterseal
Oilbasedpaint
WoodPreservative
WaterbasedWood Stain
WaterbasedExterior Paint
As
Co
un
ts
Dry
Wet
Alternative Chemicals
0
100
200
300
400
500
CCA Untreated CDDC ACQ CC CBA
As
Co
un
ts
1400
Heartwood vs. Sapwood
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
Wood sample
As
Co
un
ts
A B
Heartwood portion of sample
Distance readings
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
Distance (in)
As
Co
un
ts
0 211/80211/8
Treated
Untreated
Summary• Advantages
– Very consistent.– It can not only differentiate between treated and untreated
wood but gives the actual amount treated in specific units.• Disadvantages
– Non-customized equipment• Hit analyze key long print time.
– Limited to no more than 1” distance.– Due to the radiation, a minimum 6” radial distance must be
maintained at all times.
Questions
www.eng.miami.edu/~hmsolo/sarasota/index_sara.htm