Skip to main content

Gravity-Offload (Zero-G) Deployment Testing for Solar Arrays and Booms

A gravity-offload (zero-g or g-negation) system carries a deployable solar array, boom, or antenna against its own weight on the ground, to let its hinges, springs, and latches be exercised before flight, and the offload rig is itself mechanical ground support equipment whose friction, alignment, and stiffness become part of the test. UTEC Industrial designs, engineers, machines, fabricates, and installs custom material handling systems for aerospace and heavy industry from its Spokane Valley, WA facility, integrating Allen-Bradley PLC and motion control with in-house CNC machining, heat treating, and stress relief. This article covers why offload is used, what NASA guidance says about uncompensated gravity, the methods NASA and JPL programs compared, the error sources they measured, and the sensing that characterizes an offload rig. Like any handling system, an offload rig is built along one chain, design → engineering → parts machining → fabrication → assembly → weld fatigue → stress relief → drives → controls → tuning → monitoring, and JPL's SWOT and NISAR paper traces several costly test issues to flight design decisions made very early.

Why do solar arrays and booms need gravity offload during ground deployment tests?​

Published NASA programs describe deployable hardware that cannot carry its own weight on the ground. NASA Goddard's paper on the Global Precipitation Measurement (GPM) satellite states that its Solar Array Deployment and Drive System cannot support its own weight in a 1-g environment. The ability to g-negate let engineers verify deployment before and after environmental tests and again before launch, against requirements to deploy in less than 300 seconds, with "a consistent time within 10% of baseline performance" required to evaluate performance changes. Each GPM wing weighs about 177 kg (390 lb).

Other programs report the same constraint in other forms:

  • Compliant booms. A NASA Langley paper on triangular, rollable, and collapsible (TRAC) composite booms states that the boom is sensitive to the effects of gravity because it is compliant in transverse and torsional directions, and that because Earth's gravity cannot be avoided in a ground test, "gravity offloading methods must be used".
  • Large antennas. On the SAOCOM synthetic aperture radar antenna, the mechanisms were not designed to support the complete antenna weight on ground, "so all the integration had to be supported by" a zero-gravity offload device that had to compensate at least 85% of the deployable panels' weight.

The European space testing standard, ECSS-E-ST-10-03C Rev.1, writes the need into flight-hardware test practice. For all mechanical operations that can be disturbed by Earth's gravity field, suitable ground support fixtures shall be employed to enable operation and evaluation of the devices, and for a solar array its Table 5-1 makes the deployment test mandatory before and after the environmental tests, with manual deployment before them. The standard's scope is verification by testing of space segment elements and space segment equipment on ground prior to launch; this article cites it as space-test practice, not as a requirement on the builder of the rig (Penn et al. 2014, pp. 335–336; Kosztowny et al. 2024, §1; Garategaray et al. 2022, p. 367; ECSS-E-ST-10-03C Rev.1, 2022, §1, 6.5.1.2.2 b and Table 5-1).

How much gravity does an offload system have to cancel?​

NASA guidance gives a starting figure, written as best practice rather than as a requirement. NASA-STD-5017B, NASA's mechanisms standard, applies to space flight mechanisms designed, built, or acquired by or for NASA, and it says it may also serve as a useful guidance document for other systems such as ground support equipment. Its gravity-compensation text sits in Appendix A, which the standard says contains no requirements that must be followed to adhere to it. That appendix states:

  • Gravity compensation via offload fixtures may be used to test deployable systems that have insufficient structural margin and/or torque margin in a one-g field.
  • When gravity compensation is required, loads from uncompensated gravity effects should be less than 10 percent of the operational loads as a guide, but more stringent constraints may be warranted.
  • Uncompensated gravity of 0.1 g is usually achievable and acceptable for separation tests and for comparative measurements of appendage positioning if the direction is correct: the net shear and moment act in the same direction as in flight, "thereby causing any mechanism with backlash to assume the correct extreme positions".
  • The assisting or resisting effects of the offload fixtures should be characterized to show that the goals of the test are met, and offload fixtures should not introduce degree-of-freedom constraints on deployables, for example a vertical deflection limitation on an air-bearing table.

NASA Goddard's GSFC-STD-7000B (GEVS) carries nearly the same wording as guidance: gravity compensation should be provided to the extent necessary to achieve the test objectives, uncompensated effects should be less than 10 percent of the operational loads "as a guide", and for certain mechanical functions more stringent constraints may be required. In the same paragraph, GEVS uses "shall" for testing each mechanical operation, such as appendage deployment, at nominal-, low-, and high-energy levels. As engineering reasoning, an offload rig therefore has to hold its offload accuracy across all three energy cases, not only the nominal one (NASA-STD-5017B, 2022, §1.2.1, App. A §A.1 and §A.2.11; GSFC-STD-7000B, 2021, §2.4.5.2 c.(2)).

Which offload methods are used for deployment testing?​

Fischer and Pellegrino, in a University of Cambridge study in the Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, list concepts used for testing space structures:

  • physical methods such as drop towers and parabolic flight maneuvers
  • buoyancy techniques
  • air bearings and tables
  • simple mechanical suspension with cables and pulleys, often in combination with counterweights, zero-springrate mechanisms, and pneumatic or electric devices

They add that improvement of the mechanical methods led to actively controlled single-point suspension systems.

JPL's paper on the SWOT and NISAR reflector booms records how the two missions chose among four heritage JPL approaches: a helium balloon offload system, an overhead swing arm, a 2-axis overhead trolley, and caster or air-bearing support from below. The primary metrics were hardware and personnel safety, estimated cost of offload system development, and test facility needs. The overhead swing arm with a whippletree was selected for both missions.

MethodWhat the cited sources report
Helium balloonA JPL trade-study option; JPL recommends self-aligning systems "such as balloons or balance beams" for flight designs needing a very high level of offload precision. A DLR and NASA solar-sail paper names balloon offloading in horizontal tests as one future way to study a scale effect seen in vertical tests.
Overhead swing arm with whippletreeSelected for SWOT and NISAR; sensitive to alignment with gravity (see the tolerance answer below).
Overhead gantryDropped for GPM: the panels' multi-directional path would demand a relatively elaborate overhead tracking system that could neither introduce significant friction nor influence the path.
Air pads on tablesChosen for GPM; because of the wing span's long moment arm, even the small friction of a castor-supported system could have overwhelmed the wing hinge springs.
Active trackingNASA's ARGOS uses a robotic system similar to an overhead bridge crane, with active control of all translational axes to reduce inertial effects; the paper describes it as attaching to "a human or payload" and offloading a portion of a suited human's weight; it is not described for deployables.

None of these sources gives an offload-force accuracy figure for a balloon or for an active tracking system (Fischer and Pellegrino 2000, p. 93; Lytal et al. 2022, pp. 354–355 and 363–364; Richter et al. 2023, §V.C; Penn et al. 2014, p. 336; Bekdash et al. 2020, Abstract and §I).

How does an air-bearing table offload a solar array wing, and what can go wrong?​

GPM's g-negation system consisted of air pads, a support structure, an air supply, and support tables. Its support structure was designed to prevent tipping without becoming over-constrained and binding during deployment, and loads were distributed among 19 air pads, and where two or three pads sat side by side they were coupled with a universal joint to avoid over constraint. The paper reports four problems and their fixes:

  • Air-pad chatter. Above a load threshold the pads chattered at high frequency, acting as air motors. Blocking half the outlet holes moved the major pressure drop to the outlets; with the pressure ratio above the critical ratio (0.528 for air), the outlet velocity rises to Mach 1, downstream pressure changes cannot affect the flow rate, and the paper states that with the pneumatic feedback loop broken, no instability is possible. The facility air could then lift a wing with a 40% margin.
  • Table seams. The tables were over 20 years old and had warped, and height differences at the seams increased friction or blocked pad travel. A two-layer cover, soft below and hard on top, bridged the seams. For the cleanroom it needed a low-outgassing substitute: a foam under a film with a vapor-deposited aluminum coating, which dissipated the electrostatic charge created by airflow from the pads.
  • Pitch and roll. Any boom pitch outside −0.10° to +0.10° at the shoulder hinge produced deployments longer than expected, and small roll changes altered the path; one post-vibration deployment with roll out of specification by approximately ±0.10° stalled on a warped table.
  • Hose routing. Slight changes in air-hose routing changed the deployment path and time, and the team photographed the hose configuration to make it repeatable.

With pitch, roll, and hose routing recorded, two observatory-level deployments three months apart differed by 3 seconds, or 2.91%. The air pads also supported a deployed first-mode frequency test; the paper notes that they induce almost zero friction and that the measured frequency was close to the prediction (Penn et al. 2014, pp. 335–348).

When is vertical testing or parabolic flight used instead of an offload rig?​

Two alternatives reorient or remove gravity rather than cancel it:

  • Vertical suspension. The NASA Langley TRAC study hung a 7-m subscale boom vertically, aligning its stiffest direction with gravity, and its abstract reports that this reduced "highly nonlinear and unstable behavior often encountered during horizontally oriented gravity offload testing of similar structures". The paper states that earlier wiffletree mechanisms constraining the boom "impart shape changes and restrict select degrees of freedom", and that twist and local cross-section variation may not be observed when horizontally offloaded because gravity tended to untwist the booms. The facility was a 31.6-m-tall tower, and a root fixture with leveling bolts leveled the boom in line with gravity. That setup was for quasi-static loading of a fully deployed boom in ambient conditions, not a deployment test.
  • Parabolic flight. A DLR and NASA Langley solar-sail boom test flew parabolas that each gave about a 20-second microgravity phase below ±0.03 g in all axes, with about 1.8 g hypergravity phases before and after.

Vertical testing leaves its own artifact. The solar-sail paper compares its microgravity results to DLR's 13.5-m vertical test stand: at the 3.65-m scale, 1-g vertical tests gave elastic stiffness and bending stiffness about 44% higher for left-side and 25% higher for right-side loading than microgravity. The authors call those differences statistically significant and consider them to originate in an artificial stiffening effect from the mass of the boom itself and the boom tip interface, and they describe the 12.76-m comparison as not conclusive at this point. Their abstract says that gravity compensation and vertical testing have been used, but "an uncertainty factor remains towards the behaviour in the space environment". These figures apply to that boom and deployer only (Kosztowny et al. 2024, Abstract, §1, §2, §2.1 and §2.2; Richter et al. 2023, Abstract, §II.C, §II.D and §V.C).

How does the offload rig change what the test measures?​

An offload rig becomes part of the article's boundary conditions. Fischer and Pellegrino write that the artificial support system imposes constraints on the structure "and, thus, perturbs its static, dynamic, and deployment behavior". Their model was a small-scale, cable-deployed rigid-panel solar array of the type used on the EURECA spacecraft, which needs multiple supports "to prevent excessive loading and deformation", and earlier deployment tests on a small-scale laboratory model had shown suspension-force variations that were "surprisingly large" even during quasi-static deployment. They conclude that their manually adjustable suspension, which does not allow on-line adjustment, cannot produce accurate gravity compensation, and that "Some improvements can be achieved by manual adjustments, but further optimization requires an active system".

Three further effects appear in the sources:

  • Residual deformation. The SAOCOM flatness analysis lists "the 1G to 0G unloading deformations" among the unknown error sources in space, as distinct from error sources known and characterized on ground.
  • Assist or resist. NASA-STD-5017B's best-practice appendix says the assisting or resisting effects of offload fixtures should be characterized, and the SWOT and NISAR requirement set permitted no deployment assistance torque from the rig for performance tests.
  • Analysis coverage. ECSS-E-ST-33-01C Rev.2, the European standard for flight mechanisms, requires its mechanism analyses to cover the effect of on-ground environmental conditions, with a note naming air pressure, gravity effects, and test rigs perturbations.

As engineering reasoning, a deployment test report states which offload effects were characterized by test and which were left to analysis (Fischer and Pellegrino 2000, Abstract and p. 93; Garategaray et al. 2022, p. 366; NASA-STD-5017B, 2022, App. A §A.2.11; Lytal et al. 2022, p. 356; ECSS-E-ST-33-01C Rev.2, 2019, 4.8.2.1 c NOTE 2).

Why is a fixed-root deployment test harder to offload than a free-free test?​

JPL's SWOT and NISAR boom tests show how the test architecture sets the offload tolerance. The deployments ran on a fixed, immovable ground constraint rather than free-free, a decision that stemmed from the over-constrained launch stowed configurations and the launch restraints that stage each hinge. The paper explains that in a free-free configuration, errors in the offload weight would be observable in test as the structure sinks or rises, enabling the offload force to be tuned even with imperfect mass-properties knowledge. The fixed root instead meant "much tighter requirements in offload weight accuracy and center of gravity location knowledge" and increased risk to hardware if an incorrect counterweight was applied.

The figures that followed:

  • Hinge moment limit. The not-to-exceed moment on the hinges moved from 389.8 N·m to 54 N·m, then to about 11.3 N·m, and was relaxed to 28.25 N·m after qualification-model hinge testing.
  • Setup tolerances. Suballocated tolerances were on the order of ±1.25 kg offload error (0.9% of total offload) and ±0.6 cm center-of-gravity location error, with total offload weights of 46 to 136 kg at center-of-gravity distances of 63.5 to 165 cm from the swing arm.
  • Mass properties. The team weighed all flight and GSE components rather than relying on CAD mass estimates, and tracked every configuration change with quality-assurance verification.
  • Out-of-plane hinge. For NISAR's out-of-horizontal-plane hinge, offload error directly opposed deployment; the driving limit became 4.5 N·m, allowing only zero to 0.7 kg of offload error at 63.5 cm. Deploy times ranged from 110 to 2,400 seconds, and the difference between 110 and 740 seconds was determined to potentially be caused by a 0.34 kg offload difference and a 0.5 cm lateral center-of-gravity difference. The project dropped deployment-profile consistency as a success metric for that hinge.

The statics behind these tolerances is the moment of a force, its magnitude times its perpendicular distance from the moment center. As illustrative arithmetic by UTEC, not a figure from the paper, the two setup tolerances sum to about the 28.25 N·m limit at the paper's outer bounds: 1.25 kg × 9.81 m/s² × 1.65 m ≈ 20.2 N·m, plus 136 kg × 9.81 m/s² × 0.006 m ≈ 8.0 N·m, for about 28.2 N·m. It assumes the largest offload weight and the longest center-of-gravity distance act together, which the paper does not state. The figures are for these two missions' booms only (Lytal et al. 2022, pp. 353 and 356–358; Baker and Haynes 2026, §4.1).

How do friction, alignment, and rig stiffness set offload tolerances?​

The same JPL paper traces the remaining offload error to the rig itself:

  • Pulley drag. Four pulleys routed the offload cable to the counterweight to reduce the inertia of the system. Their combined drag at the maximum offload weight of 125 kg was 2.25 kg, which violated the ±2.75 lb (±1.25 kg) requirement when the boom's center of gravity moved up or down. Changing pulley diameters from 15.25 cm to 50.8 cm, with the same ball bearing sizes, cut the drag to 0.9 kg. For the out-of-plane hinge, system friction was measured with a dummy weight before each deployment and the offload mass adjusted for it.
  • Gravity alignment. The flight hinge axis had to be within 0.2° of the gravity vector, to limit center-of-gravity vertical translation.
  • Rig alignment. The 1,360 kg Deploy Fixture was rolled on four casters across an uneven floor, and its swing-arm hinge had to be aligned to the flight hinge axis 6 m below it to within 1.9 cm, with four corner jacks giving only coarse leveling.
  • Rig stiffness. The implemented design had a low-stiffness support structure for the swing-arm axis, which changed orientation and position under load through the range of motion; the team pre-biased the rig orientation during setup and chose the support clocking for each hinge to stay within limits.
  • Seating and bearings. Drag curves sometimes changed between characterizations. The exact root cause was not conclusively determined; the paper gives two theories, swing-arm bearings that may have shifted within their bores, and a rig that sometimes rocked about two opposing jacks like an imbalanced four-legged stool. Quality-assurance checks were added to confirm that all four jacks were well seated.

JPL's lessons for swing-arm systems are to build direct alignment features or degrees of freedom into the swing arm, independent of global support leveling, and to design the support structure "to be stiff enough and rigidly assembled to prevent unacceptable levels of deflection or shifting of this swing arm axis during usage" (Lytal et al. 2022, pp. 357–364).

What sensing and controls does a gravity-offload system need?​

The cited programs instrument offload hardware at three levels:

  • Force at each offload point. SWOT and NISAR's latched-hinge limits required multiple offload points on each boom segment, tight tolerances on the target offload force at each, and continuous monitoring of those forces during deployment for hardware safety. The NASA Langley boom test used a primary in-line load cell, a secondary load cell to provide data that may be used to determine line-loss due to friction in the pulleys, and a tertiary load cell to indicate whether misaligned loads were being applied to the secondary.
  • Rig drag characterization. JPL first characterized the rig's interference torque by turning the swing arm by hand through a torque transducer with an angle encoder. Operator-induced torques made the SWOT results too variable, and the rig was reworked with a motor, torque transducer, and encoder turning the arm at a constant rate, with a clutch to disengage it for flight deployments. Generally, the slower the arm turned, the higher the average measured parasitic torque, and characterization runs were made both before and after each deployment. The rig had no way to record its own resistance torque in real time with flight hardware rigged; feeding measured characterization data into the deployment model predicted durations within 5% of actuals for the final two SWOT deployments.
  • Attitude. GPM measured roll at the shoulder hinge, and pitch across the booms between the shoulder and elbow hinges, with a two-axis precision digital level with an accuracy of 0.01°.

Load cells bring their own error terms. OIML R 60-1, the international legal-metrology recommendation for load cells, defines creep as the change in load cell output occurring with time under constant load with all environmental conditions and other variables also constant, and it defines temperature effects on sensitivity and on minimum dead load output. Its scope is load cells used in measuring instruments subject to metrological controls, and it is cited here for vocabulary only. On the control side, Fischer and Pellegrino conclude that even a simple, actively controlled system would be able to produce accurate gravity compensation where their manual one could not, and a Logix 5000 periodic task performs a function at a specific time interval; as engineering reasoning, that task type suits fixed-rate force logging and offload trim. UTEC Industrial, a Rockwell Automation Recognized System Integrator, builds Allen-Bradley ControlLogix and CompactLogix control, VFD and servo drives, and UL 508A panels into the handling equipment it fabricates (Lytal et al. 2022, pp. 354 and 360–363; Kosztowny et al. 2024, §3.2; Penn et al. 2014, p. 346; OIML R 60-1:2021, §2 and §3; Fischer and Pellegrino 2000, p. 93; Rockwell Automation 1756-RM094N-EN-P-2025, Ch. 5 p. 41).

Where does a gravity-offload rig sit in the design-to-monitoring chain?​

Each link of the chain carries an offload consequence:

  • Design. JPL's first lesson is to consider ground test needs for large flight deployables early in mission planning and to involve integration-and-test and MGSE engineers at the earliest stages. ECSS-E-ST-33-01C Rev.2 requires flight latches to be resettable for ground testing, and the GEVS CubeSat appendix says that "Under most cases" the designer should be able to provide enough force and strength to perform deployment tests on the ground without g-negation devices.
  • Engineering. JPL's hinge moment limit tightened after the rig's design had begun; the paper states that the 28.25 N·m requirement, if identified earlier, could have been a driving consideration in the offload architecture trade.
  • Parts machining and assembly. As engineering reasoning from JPL's pulley and bearing findings, sheave diameters, bearing fits in their bores, and alignment features are drawing-level decisions that set drag and axis stability.
  • Fabrication, weld fatigue, and stress relief. Fatigue and stress relief of welded MGSE frames are covered in What Is Mechanical Ground Support Equipment (MGSE) for Aerospace Handling?.
  • Drives, controls, and tuning. The motorized characterization axis, its clutch, and the force monitoring are controls items specified with the rig.
  • Monitoring. Pre- and post-test characterization and configuration records carry the rig's condition from one deployment to the next.

GEVS also asks that limitations preventing verification by test be documented, and it gives "Inability to deploy hardware in a 1-g environment" as an example. UTEC Industrial's aerospace work includes mechanical ground support equipment for satellite and spacecraft assembly for Maxar (Lytal et al. 2022, pp. 356 and 363; ECSS-E-ST-33-01C Rev.2, 2019, 4.7.5.4.3 g; GSFC-STD-7000B, 2021, §2.1.1.1.1 and App. B §2.4.5).

What should a specification for a gravity-offload rig define?​

JPL's initial requirement set for the SWOT and NISAR rig is a usable outline. It covered the maximum suspended mass and its center-of-gravity offset from the swing-arm axis; offload interface locations; a keep-out zone for the swept volume; maximum deployment resistance torque and its repeatability in a setup; no assistance torque for performance tests; maximum moment on latched hinges; maximum inertia of the moving GSE; maximum overshoot force at the end of deployment; the ability to offload every hinge and configuration of both missions; and the ability to be taken apart for shipment.

The paper reports that little was understood at delivery about the alignment and positioning tolerances needed for acceptable drag torques, or the mass-properties knowledge needed to stay within the hinge limits. As engineering reasoning drawn from the sources above, a specification can add:

  • the mass-properties method, and the offload and center-of-gravity tolerances derived from the hinge limits
  • alignment degrees of freedom for the offload axis independent of base leveling, and a stated support-structure stiffness
  • characterization runs before and after each test, at the expected deployment speed
  • real-time recording of the rig's resistance torque with flight hardware rigged
  • the uncompensated-gravity target, stated against NASA-STD-5017B's 10-percent guide, and the nominal-, low-, and high-energy cases GEVS calls for
  • outgassing and electrostatic-discharge limits on air-pad surfaces and hoses when the rig enters a cleanroom, as GPM's did (the cleanroom and ESD requirements article sets out those requirements)

UTEC Industrial performs factory acceptance testing and on-site commissioning, where a rig's alignment features, drag characterization, and force monitoring can be demonstrated before it ships (Lytal et al. 2022, pp. 356 and 359–364; NASA-STD-5017B, 2022, App. A §A.2.11; GSFC-STD-7000B, 2021, §2.4.5.2 c.(2); Penn et al. 2014, pp. 342–344).

Related Articles

References​

  • Penn J, Johnson C, Lewis J, Dear T, Stewart A (2014). "GPM Solar Array Gravity Negated Deployment Testing." Proceedings of the 42nd Aerospace Mechanisms Symposium, pp. 335-348. NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, 2014.
  • Kosztowny CJR, Dean GD, Long D, Larson RA, Moore JP, Morel JE, Salazar JE, Mennu MM, Gardner NW (2024). "Experimental Setup for Mechanically Testing Subscale Triangular, Rollable, and Collapsible Deployable Composite Booms." American Society for Composites 39th Annual Technical Conference. NASA NTRS 20240009041.
  • Garategaray L, Casais J, Martín Ghiselli A, Quiroz H, Di Pasquale G (2022). "Flatness Adjustment in the Design and Integration of a 35-m2 Space Deployable Synthetic Aperture Radar Antenna." Proceedings of the 46th Aerospace Mechanisms Symposium, pp. 365-378. NASA Johnson Space Center, 2022.
  • ECSS-E-ST-10-03C Rev.1: Space engineering — Testing. ECSS Secretariat, ESA-ESTEC, 2022.
  • NASA-STD-5017B: Design and Development Requirements for Mechanisms. National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 2022.
  • GSFC-STD-7000B: General Environmental Verification Standard (GEVS) for GSFC Flight Programs and Projects. NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, 2021.
  • Fischer A, Pellegrino S (2000). "Interaction Between Gravity Compensation Suspension System and Deployable Structure." Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, 37(1), 93-99.
  • Lytal PD, Waldman J, Waters KC (2022). "SWOT and NISAR Boom Ground Deployment Test Challenges & Resolution." Proceedings of the 46th Aerospace Mechanisms Symposium, pp. 351-364. NASA Johnson Space Center, 2022.
  • Richter M, Fernandez JM, Straubel M, Zander ME, Salazar JE, Chamberlain MK (2023). "Force Application of a Single Boom for a 500-m²-Class Solar Sail." AIAA SciTech 2023 Forum, AIAA 2023-0938.
  • Bekdash OS, Valle PS, Kim KJ, Jarvis SL, Dunn JT, Norcross JR, Abercromby AFJ (2020). "Development and Evaluation of the Active Response Gravity Offload System as a Lunar and Martian EVA Simulation Environment." 50th International Conference on Environmental Systems, ICES-2020-175.
  • ECSS-E-ST-33-01C Rev.2: Space engineering — Mechanisms. ECSS Secretariat, ESA-ESTEC, 2019.
  • Baker, D.W. and Haynes, W. Engineering Statics: Open and Interactive. Colorado State University and Massachusetts Maritime Academy, 2026.
  • OIML R 60-1:2021: Metrological regulation for load cells — Part 1: Metrological and technical requirements. International Organization of Legal Metrology, 2021.
  • Rockwell Automation 1756-RM094N-EN-P-2025: Logix 5000 Controllers Design Considerations. Rockwell Automation, 2025.

Ready to Discuss a Material Handling System?​

UTEC Industrial designs, engineers, machines, fabricates, and installs custom material handling systems for heavy industry, from the stress-relieved structure and drives to the Allen-Bradley PLC controls, tuning, and monitoring that run them, at its Spokane Valley, WA facility. Send UTEC the application, loads, and duty cycle to start a system review.

Request a Quote →

Questions? Call (509) 922-1832 or email sales@utec.co

Last updated on