1 / 20

Spar Mill Work-Holder

Spar Mill Work-Holder. University of Idaho 2008 Capstone Project Sponsored By Boeing. Sparmill Team: Members: Ryan Mathews, Andy Florence, Ben Puyleart . Instructor: Jay McCormack Mentors : Chris Huck, Russ Porter. Problem Definition. Background:

milos
Download Presentation

Spar Mill Work-Holder

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. Spar Mill Work-Holder University of Idaho 2008 Capstone Project Sponsored By Boeing • Sparmill Team: • Members: Ryan Mathews, Andy Florence, Ben Puyleart. • Instructor: Jay McCormack • Mentors: Chris Huck, Russ Porter

  2. Problem Definition • Background: • Boeing’s Auburn Plant manufactures airplane wing spars which are the primary structural component that runs the length of the wing. • The spar mill work holder secures the aluminum work piece while the mill shapes the components, which can be over 150 feet in length. • Currently, the work piece is hydraulically clamped down onto the work holder. • The current spar mill work-holder in place at the Boeing Company’s Auburn Skin and Spar Division has been causing a maintenance problem for the last 15 plus years due to hydraulic failures. Problem: The product opportunity is to reduce the occurrence of failure in the current work-holder while maintaining clamping specifications.

  3. Understanding The ProblemProblem tear down-Function chart

  4. Requirements and Specifications

  5. Concept designs

  6. Final Design Key Features: Common Shaft: Rigidly connects two clamps to reduce the quantity of hydraulic cylinders Spring System: Springs supply 1500 [lb] clamping force rather than the hydraulic cylinders Release Arm: Allows for release of the spar. Prevents side loading of the hydraulic cylinder.

  7. Final Design-Exploded View

  8. Final Design-Manufactured Prototype

  9. Final Design-Manufactured Prototype

  10. DFMEA-(Design Failure Mode Effects Analysis) • One example with recommended actions

  11. Spring Testing Spring rate: 430 [lbf/in] No hysteresis effect

  12. Force Testing Hydraulic pressure: 520 [psi] Cylinder Force: 2144 [lbf] Clamping Force: 1244 [lbf] Friction Effects: causing lower clamping force Frictional Torque: 2102 [lbf*in] Clamping Force Torque: 9165 [lbf*in] Spring Torque: 11267 [lbf*in]

  13. More Force Testing

  14. Requirements and Specifications

  15. Retrofitting Cost Estimate(Per 2 Foot Section) • Rocker Arm and Shaft Assembly $510.00 • Pushrods $24.00 • Springs (2 each) $115.00 • Hardware (bolts/pins/chain) $40.00 • Spring Housing $80.00 • Labor $250.00 • Total $1019.00 • (Costs in bulk would likely be considerably less)

  16. Future Work/ Recommendations • Shielding of the spring and cylinder. • Possible heat treating of common shaft and keyways. • Improve ease of cylinder changeout (quick release fittings). • Alter design for quick and inexpensive retrofitting of current base. • Develop automatic safety lockout system.

  17. Appendix of Photos

More Related