1 / 17

Evaluating Prototype MCWF for Production C1: Advantages, Cost, and Challenges

This document explores the feasibility of using the prototype MCWF as the production model for C1. Key advantages include a production schedule of 2-3 months, with the first finished MCWF available by January/February, potentially reducing casting time for B6 by one month. However, concerns arise regarding its structural symmetry, additional machining stock requirements, and procurement complications. Questions include the differences between prototype and production castings and modification costs. Future steps involve obtaining measurement data and verifying the dimensional accuracy against CAD models.

aletha
Télécharger la présentation

Evaluating Prototype MCWF for Production C1: Advantages, Cost, and Challenges

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. D. Williamson, B. Nelson August 25, 2004 WBS Engr meeting Can prototype MCWF be used as production C1?

  2. Can prototype MCWF be used as production C1? • Advantages: • schedule: 2-3 months for first part: receive first finished MCWF in Jan / Feb? receive last casting, B6, one month earlier? • cost: up to ~$150k = casting cost of first C1 article less mods to prototype casting • Disadvantages: • May not be “stellarator symmetric” for eddy currents, structural deformations, etc. • More machining stock on prototype • Complicates procurement? • Issues: • What are differences between prototype casting and production casting? • What would needed modifications cost?

  3. Prototype MCWF vs production C1

  4. Stocked prototype model vs production MCWF Shrink parameter ref T Brown email, 11/19/03 SE141-541 EIO stocked model (11/03) with shrink = 0.9746209 Overlay of stocked model and production MCWF SE141-116

  5. Midplane cross-section SE141-116 Production MCWF SE141-541 EIO stocked model (11/03) with shrink = 0.9746209

  6. Vertical plane cross-section SE141-116 Production MCWF SE141-541 EIO stocked model (11/03) with shrink = 0.9746209

  7. Cross-Sections thru Axis at R=50-in SE141-116NFR1.STP Production MCWF without features SE141-541 EIO stocked model (11/03) with shrink = 0.9746209

  8. A B Coincident surfaces A B

  9. A B A B

  10. A B A MCWF outside of casting B

  11. Poloidal Break 15-deg MCWF outside of casting SECTION VIEW

  12. Lead block outside of casting

  13. Review of stocked reference part se141-116p T. Brown 11/19/03

  14. Stocked part shrunk by .9746209 (metal shrinkage factor) Ref se141-116p Part

  15. Shrunk stocked part superimposed within the reference se141-116p part.

  16. Profile of stocked model Cross section drawing of superimposed parts

  17. What next? • Casting is going to Metaltek • Get existing measurement data from Lawton? • Measure casting for as-built dimensions (Lawton under present contract?) • Compare prototype to production C1 CAD model from Lawton and confirm that there are not insurmountable stellarator “unsymmetries” • Discuss options with EIO team • Decision by ???

More Related