1
MC Assembly over the VVFPA Station 3
FDR Review
July 17, 2007
T. Brown
2
1. Are the requirements well defined?2. Does the design meet the requirements?3. Do the drawings define the design adequately to be used as
the sole basis for fabrication and acceptance of the support fixture?
4. Does the analysis adequately underpin the design and have they been checked?
5. Has safety been adequately addressed in the design of the support fixture?
6. Can the support fixture be fabricated and installed within the budget and schedule identified in the project baseline?
7. Have all relevant chits from previous design reviews been adequately addressed?
Charge
3
Scope
This review covers the general arrangement of the Station 3 assembly components, the support fixtures for the MC’s and VV and the laser screens.
The local alignment fixtures used to provide added positional adjustments of the MCHP and the lift fixture is not covered. This will be reviewed at a later date.
4
Requirements
Assembly • Position the VV to allow installation of the MCHP’s• Provide movement of left MCHP support to allow final
installation of right side MCHP• Provide an accurate mounting for the laser path tracings• Provide a method for installing the MCHP over the VV without
interferences• Allow access area to install Type-A flange hardware• The goal for the final tolerance for the completed assembled
MC period is ± 0.020”.
Structural • Provide a stable support for the VV to allow installation of the
MCHP’s• Provide a stable support for each MCHP that minimizes
deflection of the interfacing MC Type-A flanges• Provide a stable laser path tracing support frame
5
General Arrangement (MCHP / MC support)
6
General Arrangement (laser screen – left side)
7
General Arrangement (laser screen – right side)
8
General Arrangement (VV support)
9
Vacuum Vessel is supported and is in position to receive left MCHP
• Take metrology measurements
• Define VV position
Position the VV
Adjustable VV base support
Adjustable VV lateral support
10Peer review
Two bolts were added since peer review
VV base support
11
Diagnostic junction box geometry
A clearance space of 1.5” exists between the top of the junction box and the surface of the support structure.
12
8.75 ksi VM stress with on 1.25” bolt
0.0030” peak deflection
3,629 lb VV load
13
VV / Screen arrangement
Laser screens have been sized for laser tracings.
Tracks have been extended to remove MC supports during coil installation.
14
MCHP support structureThe MCHP is support off a base structure attached to the MC shell feet.
The base structure rolls on rails which were extended because of assembly interferences.
Support rails
Base support structure
15
8 ton Hilman Roller
Guide Roller
A local channel is used to lock the structure in place.
MCHP roller guide system
The support beam was extended on the one side.
16
Support and leveler system pre-attached
to MC.
High load leveler support
AirLoc Wedgemount bolt on spherical seat precision leveler
• 17,900 lb capacity
• +/- 0.354” displacement
Local hold down support.
17
Metrology measurements taken to establish left MCHP position
The right MCHP position set to spherical seats using the crane/mechanized screw system
Pre-fit Type-A interface
The deflection of the flange A surface when supported off he base was evaluated.
18
CG location
CG location
“CAD” weight of MCHP with support is 21,933 lbs
19
VV motion over the MCHP
20
VVSA1 metrology measured surface points added to VV
1.38”
The Type-B MC winding form comes within 1.38” to the CAD
defined VV surface.
21
There are no out-of tolerance points in the tightest region on VVSA1. Local measurement were made to confirm that all added surface components did not extend more than 1” off the surface.
22
0.384” minimum clearance to surface components
Step 0 defines the final assembled position
1” limit of surface components above vessel surface.
In general there is 2” assembly space above the VV CAD surface. With ≤ 1” surface components, leaves a min. 1” assembly gap.
VV / MCHP clearances
23
FEM Analysis of the
Stage3 Support Frame
H.M. Fan
March 14, 2007
24
Shell-support interfaces
Inboard shell type C
Outboard shell type C
Outboard shell type A
FEA Model
Support frame
25
FEA Assumptions
• Linear analysis
• Not including clamps in the model
• Weight of clamp was added to the weight of modular coil
• Constraints at four bottom pads of the support frame
• Material properties:
ComponentModulus of Elasticity
(Pa)Poison's Ratio
Density
(kg/m3)
Shell 1.45E+11 0.31 7750
Poloidal shim 1.93E+11 0.31 7750
Toroidal shim 1.50E+11 0.27 7750
Wing bag 1.38E+10 0.32 1820
Modular coil 6.30E+10 0.2 9000
Support frame 2.06E+11 0.29 7750
26
Un-deformed shape with scale of deformation = 468
Total Displacement• The inboard displacements are higher than the outboard displacements.
Unit of Displacement is meter
(0.015”)
(0.0034”)
(0.0051”)
27
Vertical Displacement• The maximum downward displacement occurs at the inboard region of the shell type A.
Unit of Displacement is meter
(0.001”)
28
Scale of Displacement = 400
Vertical Displacement of Support Frame
It is better to rotate the column 90° or to add stiffeners below the beam.
add a stiffener here
- The plots show the deformed and un-deformed shapes
29Maximum stress
von Mises Stress• Stresses in the MCWF are small. The peak stress (~2 ksi) occurs at the outboard leg of the shell type A.
• The max. von mises stress in the support frame (9.98 ksi) locates in the horizontal frame underneath the inboard column.
Unit of stress is pascal
30
Inboard shell type C
Outboard shell type A
Outboard shell type C
Contact Pressure at Shell-Support Interfaces
Unit of stress is pascal
- The contact pressures are not uniform on the contact surfaces
(877 psi)
31
Forces on Top of Column Supports
• Forces and moments are shown in the global coordinate system:
• The calculated dead weight of MC and MCWF is 19.52 kips. If the actual measured dead weight is greater than that, all the calculated stresses, forces, and displacements can be reasonably increased by the same ratio.
• Inboard column under shell type C has the highest axial load and the bending moments.
Force componentShell A
outboard leg (newton)
Shell C outboard leg
(newton)
Shell C inboard leg (newton)
Sum (newton)
Sum (lb)
FX -47 492 -445 0.00 0
FY 345 -113 -233 0.00 0
FZ 36,697 6,938 43,202 86,837.03 19,523
Summation pointx=1.9218m y=0.5539m
z= -1.2319m
x=1.4350m y=1.4221m
z= -1.1986m
x=0.6510m y=0.7588m
z= -1.1986m
MX (m-N) 279 -198 -531
MY (N-m) 224 213 487
MZ (N-m) 16 8 -22
32
• W6X25 Ix = 53.3 in^4 Sx = 16.7 in^3 rx = 2.67 inIy = 17.1 in^4 Sy = 5.62 in^3 ry = 1.53 in
• Column stress criteria are checked as follows:
Column Design
W6x25 Value Unit Note
Area 7.35 in^2
Column Length 33.68 in
Efffective Length 3.37 ft k = 1.2
Yielding strength 36.00 ksiFa 20.14 ksi From AISC
fa 1.32 ksi inboard
fa / Fa 0.066 < 15%
Fbx 21.60 ksi 0.6 Fy
fbx 0.28 ksi
fbx / Fbx 0.013
Fby 21.60 ksi
fby 0.77 ksi
fby / Fby 0.036
Sumation of ( fi / Fi) 0.11 < 1.0 OK
where: Fa is the allowable axial stress in the absence of bending momentfa is the computed axial stress
33
• Summation of total forces and moments at the base of the inboard column in the global coordinate system are:
FX = - 445 N FY = - 233 N FZ = 44405 N MX = -332 m-N MY = 31 m-N MZ = -22 m-N
or FX = - 100 lb FY = - 52 lb FZ = 9980 lb MX = -2.94 in-k MY = 0.27 in-k MZ = -0.20 in-k
• For ½ -13 UNC A307 bolt, Fy = 33 ksi, the allowable single shear load is 1.96 kip.
• Allowable tensile area is 0.1419 in2 and the allowable bolt tension is 2.81 kip.
Bolt stress
X = 3”
Y = 4”
• With bolt group as shown on the right, the maximum shear in the bolt is 0.03 kip, which is much smaller than the allowable shear 1.96 kip.
• The maximum tension in the bolt is 0.64 kips that also smaller than allowable tension.
34
FEM Analysis of the
Stage3 Support Frame
Follow-up
35
HM loading were applied to each support, ignoring the MCHP movement constraints at the top of the posts.
0.148” max deflection
36
Incorporating square tubes and local stiffeners reduced the peak deflection from 0.148” to 0.009” (also excluding MCHP moment constraints).
37
Deflected surface of Type-A flange shown is from HM’s original analysis. With additional stiffness added to base structure the Type-A flange deflection should be reduced.
0.010”
0.004”
(0.0023”)
(0.004”)
(0.010”)(0.011”)
38
59”
Review of Type-A flange bolt access
39
Review of earlier chits – Oct 06, external peer review
# Chit/Audit Finding [Originator]Review Board
Recommendation
Responsibility
41
Need to establish revised envelopes for the coil clamps, thermal insulation, and as-built (out-of-tolerance) VV including appropriate envelope for VV clamps. Need to reassess minimum clearances. Document results with assumptions clearly identified. - W. Reiersen
Concur Brown
42
Consider coil-to-coil interferences that might result from the coolant tubes on the modular coils - W. Reiersen
Concur Brown
51
Has the reduction in clearance between VV and MC during assembly due to as-built dimensions of VV and MC been evaluated? Does this include the new clamps? What is the minimum clearance when all of this is taken into account? 0.4”? - E. Perry
Project should evaluate
Brown
50
The stage 3 assembly will be tedious but doing this with crane and rigging hardware is probably the correct approach. I would encourage the team to continue to prototype this approach with the “mechanized screw with inline encoders” as soon as practical. - K. Chipley
Concur Brown
52
Who is designing and fabricating the VV/MC standoffs for use during the assembly? How are they attached to the vacuum vessel? - E. Perry
Project should evaluate
Brown
57
Trials need to be completed promptly so adjustments can be made without affecting overall schedule. - E. Perry
Concur Brown
40
1. Are the requirements well defined?2. Does the design meet the requirements?3. Do the drawings define the design adequately to be used as
the sole basis for fabrication and acceptance of the support fixture?
4. Does the analysis adequately underpin the design and have they been checked?
5. Has safety been adequately addressed in the design of the support fixture?
6. Can the support fixture be fabricated and installed within the budget and schedule identified in the project baseline?
7. Have all relevant chits from previous design reviews been adequately addressed?
Charge
41
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
2.2
2.4
2.6
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.10
Step
Dis
tan
ce Origional
0.25" offset
1.57"
1.38"
42
VV weight assumed was 3736 lbs.
(Half VV period with no ports plus services)
1000 lb lateral + gravity load
1-3/4” bolt at base
14.3 ksi peak VM stress
43
10.3 ksi
1000 lb lateral load + gravity load
1-3/4” bolt at base
44
Adaptor fitting (pin missing)
My question to you is, does a commercial swivel hoist ring exist (screwed to lower plate) that can be used in place of built-up
fitting shown?
