1 MC Assembly over the VV FPA Station 3 FDR Review July 13, 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

10 Peer 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.

ksi VM stress with on 1.25” bolt ” 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 structure The 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 +/ ” 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 “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.

” 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:

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

29 Maximum 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 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.

32 W6X25Ix = 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: Column Design where:F a is the allowable axial stress in the absence of bending moment f a 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 = N FY = N FZ = N MX = -332 m-N MY = 31 m-N MZ = -22 m-N orFX = lb FY = - 52 lb FZ = 9980 lb MX = in-k MY = 0.27 in-k MZ = in-k For ½ -13 UNC A307 bolt, Fy = 33 ksi, the allowable single shear load is 1.96 kip. Allowable tensile area is in 2 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 ” 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 ” 0.004” (0.0023”) (0.004”) (0.010”) (0.011”)

38 59” Review of Type-A flange bolt access

39 Review of earlier chits

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