1 / 46

MECO Magnet

MECO Magnet. Outline Final design plan Fabrication plan Fabrication costs Cost analysis Reply to specific MECO questions (Jim Miller) Magnet management requests. MIT Final Design Plan. MIT Final Design Plan Brad Smith, MIT-PSFC Repeat of talk given at Informal MECO Meeting at BNL

alessa
Download Presentation

MECO Magnet

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. MECO Magnet Outline • Final design plan • Fabrication plan • Fabrication costs • Cost analysis • Reply to specific MECO questions (Jim Miller) • Magnet management requests MECO Collaboration Meeting Feb 6-7, 2005 MECO Magnet Brad Smith, MIT-PSFC

  2. MIT Final Design Plan MIT Final Design Plan Brad Smith, MIT-PSFC Repeat of talk given at Informal MECO Meeting at BNL December 13, 2004 MECO Collaboration Meeting Feb 6-7, 2005 MECO Magnet Brad Smith, MIT-PSFC

  3. MECO Magnet Final Design Plan Summary Roll-up of Magnet Plan • NOTES • This plan is has been proposed by MIT, but does not yet have the concurrence of MECO. • PS, TS and DS fabrication durations are estimates presented at the Oct04 review, and are for reference only (not part of this Final Design Plan). • The MIT plan intends to include all activities needed to complete a final design of the magnet system, even though some of those activities may be completed elsewhere (e.g., BNL). MECO Collaboration Meeting Feb 6-7, 2005 MECO Magnet Brad Smith, MIT-PSFC

  4. R&D Task Overview MECO Collaboration Meeting Feb 6-7, 2005 MECO Magnet Brad Smith, MIT-PSFC

  5. R&D Task Detail Sub-scale winding tests • Provides structural modeling data for winding tensile and compressive modulus • Provides modeling data for other insulation concepts (GUG, prepreg, wet winding) • Contributes to the final selection of the insulation concept MECO Collaboration Meeting Feb 6-7, 2005 MECO Magnet Brad Smith, MIT-PSFC

  6. R&D Task Detail Conductor trials and testing • Validates conductor properties assumed in analytical models for • SSC cable “as is” • De-keystoned cable used in large-build TS coils near APS window • Cable-in-channel configuration of most coils MECO Collaboration Meeting Feb 6-7, 2005 MECO Magnet Brad Smith, MIT-PSFC

  7. R&D Task Detail Fabricate and Test Copper Winding • Cu winding validates our baseline design for • Impregnation quality • Winding thermal properties (assessed to be similar for other candidate insulations—GUG, prepreg, and wet winding) • Winding will have cooling detail based on a conduction cooled concept that can be tested • Tests will validate thermal performance of insulation and conduction cooling with thermo-siphon, possibly after high electromagnetic pulse load. • When testing is complete, coil will be cut open and inspected • MIT test facility can be used to facilitate testing of a first article TS coil during production phase MECO Collaboration Meeting Feb 6-7, 2005 MECO Magnet Brad Smith, MIT-PSFC

  8. R&D Task Detail Joint Trials • Joints will provide baseline concepts for joint clamping and soldering fixtures • Samples will be dissected and visually inspected MECO Collaboration Meeting Feb 6-7, 2005 MECO Magnet Brad Smith, MIT-PSFC

  9. Design Activities Summary (Detail is rolled up) MECO Collaboration Meeting Feb 6-7, 2005 MECO Magnet Brad Smith, MIT-PSFC

  10. Winding Tooling Design • This task will produce a reference design for the winding tooling. • The task is responsive to the MOG recommendation to design the tooling. • Winding tooling must be available early to support a timely start of coil winding during the fabrication phase, otherwise the magnet delivery is delayed. • The goal is to facilitate but not overly restrict the procurement process. • Some bidding vendors may have tooling already. • Others may not, in which case the existence of a reference design would facilitate their bid which will contain a manufacturing plan MECO Collaboration Meeting Feb 6-7, 2005 MECO Magnet Brad Smith, MIT-PSFC

  11. Program Management Includes RFI/RFP Processes NOTE Although the PS, DS and TS packages are produced separately, this does not preclude a all awards going to a single vendor. MECO Collaboration Meeting Feb 6-7, 2005 MECO Magnet Brad Smith, MIT-PSFC

  12. Budgetary Cost Overview Budgetary Cost for Magnet Plan MECO Collaboration Meeting Feb 6-7, 2005 MECO Magnet Brad Smith, MIT-PSFC

  13. Estimated Cost by Month Funding with contingency Flow per month required to support the plan MECO Collaboration Meeting Feb 6-7, 2005 MECO Magnet Brad Smith, MIT-PSFC

  14. Estimated Cumulative Cost Cumulative funding with contingency MECO Collaboration Meeting Feb 6-7, 2005 MECO Magnet Brad Smith, MIT-PSFC

  15. Conclusions • An integrated program plan has been presented that is both responsive to the MOG recommendations, and recognizes the phased funding. • A short period is included for plan negotiation and agreement. • The plan leads to an early RFI (6/13/05) and includes all work leading to and including RFP’s for the magnet “parts”. • Existing and requested supplemental funds will be consumed quickly if the plan dates are to be met. • Additional funding from the FY05 RSVP Congressional authorization will need to be committed soon to avoid delays. • Additional funds to support the final design plan will be needed from future (FY06) Congressional authorizations to complete the plan. • The plan can be adjusted for alternative funding profiles. • The plan currently lacks the concurrence of MECO MECO Collaboration Meeting Feb 6-7, 2005 MECO Magnet Brad Smith, MIT-PSFC

  16. Fabrication/Installation Schedule (As presented at Oct04 Review—New FD Plan not yet merged here) • Final design review releases fabrication • Some tooling may require early release • All activities are assumed to be single shift except for winding • Conductor fabrication sequence: PS , TSu, DS, TSd MECO Collaboration Meeting Feb 6-7, 2005 MECO Magnet Brad Smith, MIT-PSFC

  17. PS Fabrication • Winding tooling • May require early release • Two winding machines • Multiple impregnation molds so as to not bottleneck production MECO Collaboration Meeting Feb 6-7, 2005 MECO Magnet Brad Smith, MIT-PSFC

  18. TSu Fabrication MECO Collaboration Meeting Feb 6-7, 2005 MECO Magnet Brad Smith, MIT-PSFC

  19. TSd Fabrication MECO Collaboration Meeting Feb 6-7, 2005 MECO Magnet Brad Smith, MIT-PSFC

  20. DS Fabrication MECO Collaboration Meeting Feb 6-7, 2005 MECO Magnet Brad Smith, MIT-PSFC

  21. Site Work at BNL MECO Collaboration Meeting Feb 6-7, 2005 MECO Magnet Brad Smith, MIT-PSFC

  22. Magnet Cost Estimate • Bases • Initially, engineering estimates were made; some have been updated, some remain • Several larger cost items have been corroborated by industrial estimates • GA estimates for PS, TSu, TSd, and DS magnets & cryostats • Tooling and tooling design • Winding, assembly, mandrels, vessels, shipping • Other industrial estimates • Conductor (Outokumpu) • Coil mandrels (D&G Machine, MEJ-Inc, Millinocket Fab & Machine, in addition to GA) • Insulation (Cryogenic Materials, Inc, Can-Do National Tape) • Refrigerator/liquefier (Air Liquide, Cryo Technologies, Linde) • Return yokes (International Steel) • Resource loading based on schedule yields the implied funding profile • Costs from Oct04 review were escalated from $FY04 to $FY05 • Escalation taken at 4% per annum, which is high compared to RSVP guideline • Escalation rates will be corrected in baseline preparation • Costs have been reviewed in Feb05 in preparation for this meeting • Labor rates were adjusted prior to the Oct04 review to reflect rates from an MIT ITER study. • An oversight resulted in the application of these new rates to only the PS magnet costs during the Oct04 review. This has now been corrected. • Without any change to the contingency costs from Oct04, this would result in magnet costs which are about $2.7M over the $56M magnet cap. • Probably some lowering of the contingency rates from Oct04 levels (~28%) are justified based on maturity of costs and the independent GA estimate. • This adjustment may be further validated when the Lockheed contingency rates are applied, which has not yet been done. • For now, contingency has been adjusted so total costs fall under the $56M cap. • Other savings may be realized through escalation correction and with design changes MECO Collaboration Meeting Feb 6-7, 2005 MECO Magnet Brad Smith, MIT-PSFC

  23. Overall Cost($FY05) • Final design costs are taken from the final design plan as presented here. • OH and profit rates: • Material: 15% • Labor: 100% • Note: The 100% overhead rate is a hold-over from earlier MIT costing and is only relevant here in that it determines the equivalent total rate used, which is based on an MIT labor rate survey done for the ITER project. • Profit: 10% MECO Collaboration Meeting Feb 6-7, 2005 MECO Magnet Brad Smith, MIT-PSFC

  24. Labor Rates MECO Collaboration Meeting Feb 6-7, 2005 MECO Magnet Brad Smith, MIT-PSFC

  25. PS Cost(Excluding Contingency) MECO Collaboration Meeting Feb 6-7, 2005 MECO Magnet Brad Smith, MIT-PSFC

  26. TSu Cost (Excluding Contingency) MECO Collaboration Meeting Feb 6-7, 2005 MECO Magnet Brad Smith, MIT-PSFC

  27. TSd Cost (Excluding Contingency) MECO Collaboration Meeting Feb 6-7, 2005 MECO Magnet Brad Smith, MIT-PSFC

  28. DS (Excluding Contingency) MECO Collaboration Meeting Feb 6-7, 2005 MECO Magnet Brad Smith, MIT-PSFC

  29. Funding by FY– Profile (Assumes FY05 Start) • Actual billings may vary due to accounting lag time • Unspent but committed funds need to be carried over from one year to the next MECO Collaboration Meeting Feb 6-7, 2005 MECO Magnet Brad Smith, MIT-PSFC

  30. Cost Analysis(overview) MECO Collaboration Meeting Feb 6-7, 2005 MECO Magnet Brad Smith, MIT-PSFC

  31. Cost AnalysisPS MECO Collaboration Meeting Feb 6-7, 2005 MECO Magnet Brad Smith, MIT-PSFC

  32. Cost AnalysisTSu MECO Collaboration Meeting Feb 6-7, 2005 MECO Magnet Brad Smith, MIT-PSFC

  33. Cost AnalysisTSd MECO Collaboration Meeting Feb 6-7, 2005 MECO Magnet Brad Smith, MIT-PSFC

  34. Cost AnalysisDS MECO Collaboration Meeting Feb 6-7, 2005 MECO Magnet Brad Smith, MIT-PSFC

  35. Cost Analysis Summary(Reasons for, Amounts and Percentages of Cost Growth from 2002) MECO Collaboration Meeting Feb 6-7, 2005 MECO Magnet Brad Smith, MIT-PSFC

  36. New Changes from Magnet Review(Oct04) and ROM for Cost Savings • Lengthen the TS coils in the 90° bend regions from 20 cm to 40 cm. This reduces the number of coils that have to be manufactured in TSu from 32 to 24 and from TSd from 30 to 22. Note: This needs field verification! • Change the PS from bath cooling to conduction cooling with a thermo-siphon loop. MECO Collaboration Meeting Feb 6-7, 2005 MECO Magnet Brad Smith, MIT-PSFC

  37. Cost Savings ROM for Design Changes MECO Collaboration Meeting Feb 6-7, 2005 MECO Magnet Brad Smith, MIT-PSFC

  38. Specific Questions(Received from Jim Miller) • Where are the boundary lines between the magnet system and the rest of the experiment? • The numbers you are sure about and the numbers you are not sure about. Without completing the RFP process, how much faith should we have in the magnet costs? • Proposed approach and schedule for RFI, RFP, procurement, construction, etc. • Is further scrubbing of costs planned? Who will do it? • What is your understanding of the management of the magnet? That is, what is the line of responsibilities above the sub-system manager? • Where are the main risks? MECO Collaboration Meeting Feb 6-7, 2005 MECO Magnet Brad Smith, MIT-PSFC

  39. Answers to Questions 1. Where are the boundary lines between the magnet system and the rest of the experiment? • The boundary lines will ultimately be defined through the interface documents, whose creation has been started by Mike Hebert. To my understanding, these will be further developed by the MECO Chief ME when he comes on board. This is a Systems Engineering function, which is generally handled at the project level. • The gray areas at present are mostly in the facility interface area. This interface should become more clear in coming weeks as RSVP, MECO, MIT, and BNL meet to further define BNL roles. MECO Collaboration Meeting Feb 6-7, 2005 MECO Magnet Brad Smith, MIT-PSFC

  40. Answers to Questions 2. The numbers you are sure about and the numbers you are not sure about. Without completing the RFP process, how much faith should we have in the magnet costs? • Confidence level in the cost sheets is generally reflected by the size of the contingency. • We have had some form of external (non-MIT) confirmation on about 68% of the total estimated cost. This includes cost information as follows: • GA on PS, TSu, TSd and DS cryostat costs • Refrigerator/liquefier vendors on R/L costs • Steel supplier on return yokes • The largest uncertainty is with installation costs, as it is difficult to characterize the installation environment at BNL. The assigned 50% contingency here is only a guess. MECO Collaboration Meeting Feb 6-7, 2005 MECO Magnet Brad Smith, MIT-PSFC

  41. Answers to Questions 3. Proposed approach and schedule for RFI, RFP, procurement, construction, etc. • The baseline approach leading to the RFI/RFP has been covered in the discussion of the Final Design Plan. • RSVP has been queried regarding the procurement/construction approach. No decision has yet been made. • The baseline approach reflected in the plan is to obtain RFP responses from industry to a relatively small set of large procurement packages. A package could be an individual cryostat (PS, TSu, TSd, DS) or some combination of two or more. The R/L, power supplies and magnet steel would also probably be purchased through separate contracts. • Jon Kotcher states that, through discussions with Mike Harrison, he has learned BNL-SMD is interested in performing a magnet integration task where integration would be required in particular should the magnet be provided in smaller components. In that instance, SMD would assemble the components at BNL, test them, and install them in the AGS. This will be explored in coming weeks, starting perhaps next week. MECO Collaboration Meeting Feb 6-7, 2005 MECO Magnet Brad Smith, MIT-PSFC

  42. Answers to Questions 4. Is further scrubbing of costs planned? Who will do it? • Bill Molzon indicated recently in an email that RSVP plans to review the magnet costs prior to baselining. • MECO looked into having a separate cost estimate done in the late 2002 timeframe, but that was superseded by the GA estimate followed by lack of sufficient funds to do anything more. MECO Collaboration Meeting Feb 6-7, 2005 MECO Magnet Brad Smith, MIT-PSFC

  43. Answers to Questions 5. What is your understanding of the management of the magnet? That is, what is the line of responsibilities above the sub-system manager? • Mike Hebert received some clarification to these questions in a recent discussion with Jon Kotcher. • Magnets are apparently a cost center outside of MECO, but the magnet SSM is a L3 manager under the MECO PM. • The MIT final design plan (presented above) has been accepted as the default baseline. • Jon Kotcher has requested that Tom Taylor be on distribution for everything regarding the magnet • Magnet management seems to still be unfolding. • My opinion—MECO should propose a management plan that works cooperatively with RSVP to achieve the MECO needs and objectives. I would be happy to help. MECO Collaboration Meeting Feb 6-7, 2005 MECO Magnet Brad Smith, MIT-PSFC

  44. Answers to Questions 6. Where are the main risks? • Unsettled approach to procurement • Uncertain nuclear heating in the PS (could be offset with a cold compressor) • Large size may lead to lengthy leak checking • Installation environment is not well defined • Ensuring BNL safety requirements are properly reflected in the magnet RFP. • Coordination of magnet-facility interface with BNL MECO Collaboration Meeting Feb 6-7, 2005 MECO Magnet Brad Smith, MIT-PSFC

  45. Magnet Management Requests • Memo on UCI tolerance study approach and results • Updated written field specification • Latest UCI field (TOSCA) model and field verification points file/algorithm MECO Collaboration Meeting Feb 6-7, 2005 MECO Magnet Brad Smith, MIT-PSFC

  46. Success • The magnet team wants MECO to be successful • MECO and magnet teams should work cooperatively together and with RSVP to achieve MECO objectives. MECO Collaboration Meeting Feb 6-7, 2005 MECO Magnet Brad Smith, MIT-PSFC

More Related