Pre-Lehman Review Briefing

Reiersen

December 18, 2006

Purpose of briefing

• We need to have and present a common understanding of our risks and mitigation plans

• We need to work together to update our near term plans ASAP– DOE has given us the nod on ECP53, an accounting

windfall where we will assign budget to near term risks– We do not yet have a resource loaded schedule that

hangs together. This needs to be priority one following the review.

– A possible outcome of the Lehman Review is that they recommend re-baselining. That is months away and will not impact what we do with our hands and feet right now.

Current assessment of significant risks

• Risks previously identified at the May review have been retired or capped (MC winding costs)

• Emerging risks include…– Modular coil assembly cost and schedule– Field period and final assembly risks– Future procurement (Structures, PF coils) cost risks– 150C bakeout system

Modular coil assembly cost and schedule

• The time and resources required to assemble the modular coils into 3-packs on FPA Station 2 was re-estimated – Design did not change but ETC did– Large amount of time devoted to

• Metrology• Installing shear plates• Custom fitting (grinding) shims

– Number of shifts and labor costs more than doubled relative to the previous estimate for Station 2

• Holding the schedule would require a second Station 2 plus some second shift work

• Assembly working group formed to bring fabrication and assembly input into design development

Assembly of modular coils

BO MD Men Days MD Total MDInventory pre-fabricated shims (insulated on top & bottom) 1 1 1 1Mount MCWF A on assembly stand. 4 1 4 4

Determine location with laser tracker. X X XInstall 3 point spherical balls into their locations. X X X

Use laser tracker to establish MCWF FPA coordinate system 6 3 4 12 18Hone the seats as required. This applies to Type C 1-3 only - the others only have a counterbore to accept a socket insert piece. X X XUse laser tracker or romer arm to set ball locations per CAD space. X X XCheck that MCWF A has not moved and balls are correctly located. X X X

Lower MCWF B onto A - visually guide into positon 4 0.5 2 24 0.5 X

Install corner aligment plates. 4 0.5 2 2Check fiducials on A - re-set to re-establish default coordinate system due to added weight deflecting things. 6 2 1 2 8Install a few offset bushings and torque. Assumes a full set of varous sized eccentric bushings are available. Bushings may need custom machining. 2 1 2 2Check fiducials on A & B determine if correction required, adjust 3 points, and re-shim. 1 1 1 1Back office review data & approve or set corrective action. 4 1 1 1 5Check each shim location - verify that shim thicknesses are correct. Grind shim as req'd. 2 5 10 10Separate A and B 4 0.5 2 2

Assembly of modular coils

BO MD Men Days MD Total MDDiamond coat all shims X X XStud weld shear pin studs using a template. 4 4 16 16Clean weld splatter; Snap studs or grind to correct height. Install sleeve on studs? 2 2 4 4Install G-11 insulators; Check fit-up of shim plates 2 1 2 2Place all shim packs in correct locations 2 1 2 2Install wing bladders 2 1 2 2Install the remaining offset bushings and torque 2 3 6 6Check for correct position of coils readjust shims as needed 2 1 2 2Confirm final position 6 2 1 2 8

Subtotals per joint 22 31 75 97

$918,000.00Back office labor $269,280.00

Install studs / bolts; torque in sequence. 2 0.5 1 1Check MCWF positions again. 4 2 1 2 6Inject Stycast 2850 into shear plate holes (this assumes communication holes between shim plate holes and fill tubes) DO SIMLTANEOUS INJECTION OF A-B B-C 3 3 9 9Allow 48 hrs. for Stycast to cure. 0 2 0 0

Subtotals per joint 4 6.5 12 16

$146,880.00Back office labor $48,960.00

Total Labor =

Total Labor =

Assembly time on Station 2 more than doubled since September estimate

Days Man-daysStation 2 Period 1 Fit C-C (2) 62 150

Fit A-A 31 75Fit A-B (2) 62 150Fit B-C (2) 62 150Join A-B-C (2) 13 24

Period 2 Fit C-C (1) 31 75Fit A-A 31 75Fit A-B (2) 62 150Fit B-C (2) 62 150Join A-B-C (2) 13 24

Period 3 Fit A-A 31 75Fit A-B (2) 62 150Fit B-C (2) 62 150Join A-B-C (2) 13 24

Station 3 Period 1 Join A-A 15.5 30Period 2 Join A-A 15.5 30Period 3 Join A-A 15.5 30

Final Assy Join C-C (3) 46.5 90690 1602

Station 2 duration (months) [f] 14.2

Station 3 duration (months) 2.2

Final Assy duration (months) 2.2

18.6

ECP52 RevisedP1 A-A 20 31

A-B-C (2) 73 93 137 168P2 A-A 18 31

A-B-C (2) 52 70 137 168P3 A-A 16 31

A-B-C (2) 50 66 137 168229 504

[f] based on two stations, one 8hr shifts per day, and 21 days per month

[g] based on 8 hours days at $85/hr

Options for reducing costsare being aggressively pursued

• Eliminate or reduce shear plates– Add bolts to the inboard legs

• Reduces required COF from 0.75 to 0.45

– Use high friction (diamond coated) shims on inner leg (not outboard)

• COF of 0.6 achieved on NSTX

• Prototype the shear plates, shims, and bushings to refine the installation procedure and the estimate for the time and resources

• Stock shims in multiple thicknesses so custom grinding is not required

• Issues to be resolved in January

Friction required to prevent IL slippage

Key activities to resolve MC interface design

• Friction testing (Gettelfinger)– Diamond coatings

• Grit size • Binder• Shim surface condition (mill,

machined, ground, blasted)– Shim testing

• Shim surface condition (mill, machined, ground, blasted)

• G11CR on steel (flange)• Steel (shim) on steel (flange)

– Eventually do static and cyclic testing at 80K

• Bolted joint analysis (Myatt)– Determine capacity of pin

joint– Determine max preload with

through-bolts and with threaded holes

• Finalize design criteria for hybrid joints (friction joints with tight fitting bolts)

• Identify best locations for the minimum set of bolts to get us down below mu=0.45 in Brooks’ analysis

• Resolve bladder issues– Steel v. Teflon v. fabric– At wing tip only or under

whole wing

Field period assembly risks

• Input at the FPA Peer Review gave us a keener appreciation of assembly risks

• Concerns raised included…– measurement accuracy and approach– metrology equipment type and number– alignment mechanisms– bolted joints and reaming operations– use of prototypes and mockups– schedule allowances

• Assembly risks extend to final assembly as well• Do not appear to have a coherent plan for

addressing these risks – need to get on this ASAP

FPA risks have been identified and mitigation plans are being developed

• Dimensional control objectives are at risk if the measurement campaigns are not well planned – The accuracy of the Leica laser tracker and Romer arm under

real world conditions will be determined– Line-of-sight studies will be performed to determine the

optimum number and placement of fiducials– Stability of the tooling will be factored into the tooling design

• Schedule and technical objectives are at risk if suitable trial assemblies are not performed on prototypes– The use of prototypes and mockups is being expanded

• Alignment options• Shear plate prototype• Coil assembly prototype using two Type C coils (including interface

hardware)

FPA risks have been identifiedand mitigation plans are being

developed• Schedule and technical objectives are at risk if a sufficient

complement of metrology equipment and support staff is not available– A metrology utilization study will be performed to determine the

optimum metrology equipment type and number. Support staff requirements will also be assessed.

– The budget for systems engineering support of metrology activities was recognized to be inadequate and is being increased in ECP53 to cover near term needs.

– A metrology group has been organized within the Engineering Department in response to the support needs on projects like NCSX and NSTX

– NCSX is pursuing options for involving experts outside NCSX in the project. Joe Error (ORNL/SNS) has said he would be glad to help.

• Need to get the elements of this plan into the resource loaded schedule ASAP

Future procurement cost risks

• Unconventional components always carry the risk of cost surprises before bids are received– MCWF/VVSA are good examples

• Significant spread among bids submitted• Significant difference between prior budgetary cost

estimates and bids from the same supplier– Raw material prices, e.g. nickel and stainless steel, are

volatile and recently have been increasing much faster than inflation with a big impact on procurement costs

• Budgetary cost estimates are solicited and potential suppliers engaged in discussions to identify cost risks and focus value engineering efforts to mitigate cost impacts

$0

$1,000

$2,000

$3,000

$4,000

$5,000

$6,000

$7,000

Jan-06 Feb-06 Mar-06 Apr-06 May-06 Jun-06 Jul-06 Aug-06 Sep-06

SS304 SS316

PF Coils and Structures are the largest remaining procurements

• PF Coils (PF4, PF5, and PF6)– The diameter of the large ring coils (up to 18’) drives facility space

requirements and raises transportation issues – Raw material costs (Cu) for conductor also a concern

• PPPL is investigating using internally cooled cable (QPS) conductor in the PF coil design

– Fabrication costs are expected to be lower than with solid copper conductor

– Transportation issue could be avoided by winding in the NCSX Mfg Facility with existing turntable

– Could also be advantageous for PF1-3 (future upgrades)

• Estimates for outside procurement and in-house fab will be developed in the next two months

– Possibly an $500K+ problem– Update on make-or-buy decision to

follow

PF Coils and Structures are the largest remaining procurements

• Structures ($1013K budgeted)– Baseline design features large SS castings to

support TF and PF coils– Dramatic increases in raw materials costs

(stainless steel) introduce significant cost risks– Another $500K+ problem

$0

$1,000

$2,000

$3,000

$4,000

$5,000

$6,000

$7,000

Jan-06 Feb-06 Mar-06 Apr-06 May-06 Jun-06 Jul-06 Aug-06 Sep-06

SS304

SS316

Simplified structural support concept

• A radically simplified structural support concept is being considered which could reduce assembly time and cost as well as procurement costs– TF supported directly off the

modular coil shell – no separate structure

– Pre-load provided through ring above/below CS

– PF5 supported off MC shell– PF6 supported off TF coils– CS and PF4 supported off floor– Modular coils supported directly

by the base support structures• Eliminates Stage 4• Allows access for C-C fit-up at

final assembly if end TF coils are left out

• Need to evaluate performance, configuration, and C&S impacts ASAP and make a determination on whether to go ahead

150C bakeout system

• Current design for 150C vacuum vessel bakeout system relies on induction heating via the coils

• Non-uniform heating of the vessel and unwanted heating of the modular coils and other cold structures pose potential technical risks that have not been addressed

• An alternative being investigated is to blow heated air through the vessel heating / cooling tubes– If adopted, would cost an estimated $314K– Most of the cost is in SS piping which could also be used for

350C bakeout system– Inexpensive upgrade path to a 350C once-through air system

is an attractive feature

Risks and mitigation options

RISKSCOST RISK

UNAVOIDABLE COST RISK MITIGATION OPTIONS

MC FABRICATION COST $394

ADD ANOTHER TURNING FIXTURE.CONTINUE SEEKING PROCESS AND EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENTS.

FIELD PERIOD AND FINAL ASSEMBLY

MC ASSY COST AND SCHEDULE $744 $250 ADDITIONAL BOLTS AND HIGH FRICTION SHIMS

SYSTEMS ENGINEERING SUPPORT $690 $690 NONE

PF COIL PROCUREMENT $200 INVESTIGATE WINDING PF COILS WITH QPS CONDUCTOR

STRUCTURES PROCUREMENT $500 INVESTIGATE SIMPLIFIED STRUCTURE150C BAKEOUT SYSTEM $314 $50 ANALYZE NONUNIFORM HEATING

$2,842 $990

• Emerging risks have been identified• Options for reducing costs are being aggressively pursued• Some cost risks appear unavoidable

Near term priorities

• Come to closure on modular coil interface design– Reasonably addressed in update on 1421

• Develop a coherent development plan for FPA– Develop a well constructed plan for metrology and

prototype/mockup tasks– Activities to date seem ad hoc rather than steps in a well

constructed plan

• Decide on whether to pursue simplified structure option

• Document the path forward in an updated resource loaded schedule – all pieces have to fit together