T. Brown

FPA Station 5

PDR Review October xx, 2007

1

Charge

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Are the requirements well defined?

Does the design meet the requirements?

Do the drawings define the design adequately to be used as the sole basis for fabrication and acceptance of the support fixture?

Does the analysis adequately underpin the design and have they been checked?

Has safety been adequately addressed in the design of the support fixture?

Can the support fixture be fabricated and installed within the budget and schedule identified in the project baseline?

Have all relevant chits from previous design reviews been adequately addressed?

2

Scope

This review covers the general arrangement of the Station 5 assembly components, the support fixtures for Station 5 and the planned assembly sequence.

Preliminary analysis of the supporting structure will also be covered.

3

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 Structural • Provide a stable support for the full MC / VV period assembly.

• Provide a stable support to allow TF coils to be assembled over the each half of the full period assembly.

• The support structure should allow sufficient height to install VV ports and services beneath the full assembly.

4

General Arrangement

(MCHP / MC support)

5

General Arrangement

(laser screen – left side)

6

General Arrangement

(VV support)

7

Position the VV

Vacuum Vessel is supported and is in position to receive left MCHP • Take metrology measurements • Define VV position Adjustable VV base support Adjustable VV lateral support 8

VV base support

Peer review Two bolts were added since peer review 9

8.75 ksi VM stress with on 1.25” bolt 0.0030” peak deflection 3,629 lb VV load 10

VV / Screen arrangement

Laser screens have been sized for laser tracings.

Tracks have been extended to remove MC supports during coil installation.

11

MCHP support structure

12

FEM Analysis of the Stage3 Support Frame

H.M. Fan March 14, 2007 13

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:

Component Shell Poloidal shim Toroidal shim Wing bag Modular coil Support frame Modulus of Elasticity Poison's Ratio (Pa) 1.45E+11 1.93E+11 1.50E+11 1.38E+10 6.30E+10 2.06E+11 0.31

0.31

0.27

0.32

0.2

0.29

Density (kg/m 3 ) 7750 7750 7750 1820 9000 7750 14

Total Displacement

15

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 Maximum stress 16

Forces on Top of Column Supports

Force component FX FY FZ Summation point MX (m-N) MY (N-m) MZ (N-m) Shell A outboard leg (newton) -47 345 36,697 Shell C outboard leg (newton) Shell C inboard leg (newton) 492 -113 6,938 -445 -233 43,202 x=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

279 224 16 -198 213 8 -531 487 -22 Sum (newton) 0.00

0.00

86,837.03

Sum (lb) 0 0 19,523 • 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.

17

Column Design

• W6X25 Ix = 53.3 in^4 Sx = 16.7 in^3 rx = 2.67 in Iy = 17.1 in^4 Sy = 5.62 in^3 ry = 1.53 in • Column stress criteria are checked as follows: W6x25 Area Column Length Efffective Length Yielding strength F a f a f a / F a F bx f bx f bx / F bx F by f by f by / F by Sumation of ( f i / F i ) Value 7.35

33.68

3.37

36.00

20.14

1.32

0.066

21.60

0.28

0.013

21.60

0.77

0.036

0.11

Unit in^2 in ft ksi ksi ksi ksi ksi ksi ksi Note k = 1.2

From AISC inboard < 15% 0.6 F y < 1.0 OK where: F a is the allowable axial stress in the absence of bending moment f a is the computed axial stress 18

Bolt stress

• 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 in 2 and the allowable bolt tension is 2.81 kip.

X = 3” • 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.

Y = 4” 19

Charge

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Are the requirements well defined?

Does the design meet the requirements?

Do the drawings define the design adequately to be used as the sole basis for fabrication and acceptance of the support fixture?

Does the analysis adequately underpin the design and have they been checked?

Has safety been adequately addressed in the design of the support fixture?

Can the support fixture be fabricated and installed within the budget and schedule identified in the project baseline?

Have all relevant chits from previous design reviews been adequately addressed?

20

21