1 / 13

Hutch Neilson, NCSX Project Manager for the Project Team Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory

Hutch Neilson, NCSX Project Manager for the Project Team Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory Oak Ridge National Laboratory. NCSX VVSA & MCWF Final Design Review Introduction. Welcome Back, Reviewers. Signed, the NCSX Project Team.

nassor
Download Presentation

Hutch Neilson, NCSX Project Manager for the Project Team Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory

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. Hutch Neilson, NCSX Project Manager for the Project Team Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory Oak Ridge National Laboratory NCSX VVSA & MCWF Final Design Review Introduction NCSX VVSA & MCWF Final Design Review May 19-20, 2004

  2. Welcome Back, Reviewers Signed, the NCSX Project Team. We request your critical technical review and feedback on our readiness to procure long-lead components. NCSX VVSA & MCWF Final Design Review May 19-20, 2004

  3. Near-term plans for procurement of major components: The 3 Vacuum Vessel Sub-Assemblies (VVSA) The 18 Modular Coil Winding Forms (MCWF) Project responses to Fall, 2003 reviews. VVSA & MCWF cost and schedule risks. Summary: readiness to proceed. Outline NCSX VVSA & MCWF Final Design Review May 19-20, 2004

  4. FDR focus: establish a sound technical basis to proceed with VVSA and MCWF procurements. • Charge for this review: assess project’s technical readiness to proceed with these two procurements. • Feedback on other aspects of the design are welcome. (Please clearly distinguish). NCSX VVSA & MCWF Final Design Review May 19-20, 2004

  5. Plan: Award VVSA & MCWF Contracts by Aug. 30 NCSX VVSA & MCWF Final Design Review May 19-20, 2004

  6. Fall 2003 Project Reviews Established a Sound Project Baseline. • Preliminary Design Review (PDR) • Performance Baseline Review (PBR, a.k.a. Lehman Review) • External Independent Review • All found… • Technically sound design. • Cost and schedule estimates OK. • Management and plans OK. • Project ready to be baselined. • Project baseline was approved by DOE in Feb., 2004 (CD-2) R=1.42m, <a>=0.33m, B0 = 2 T NCSX VVSA & MCWF Final Design Review May 19-20, 2004

  7. Those affecting the VVSA and MCWF cost and schedule: Vacuum vessel bakeable to 350C. reduce future PFC costs and risks. Additional analysis and R&D. reduce risks of downstream delays or performance shortfalls. CD-2 baseline: $86.3M TEC, May ’08 1st Plasma Review Recommendations to Reduce Risk Were Included in the Baseline NCSX VVSA & MCWF Final Design Review May 19-20, 2004

  8. PDR 1 & 3– Coil current and LN2 feeds design and layout. Location on coil selected; access penetration through MCWF provided; interfaces checked. PDR 2– Short time between prototype delivery and procurement of production units. Have worked closely with suppliers to keep production proposals on schedule; they are already reviewing drafts of final specs and SOWs. PDR 4– Update winding tolerance budget. Will do so as we develop winding process, but MCWF tolerance still appropriate. PDR 8– MCWF “tee” deflections during machining. Experience to date indicates no issue. PDR 26– Inaccessible bolts at structural shell joints. Analysis shows they are not needed. Technical Recommendations Affecting MCWF Procurement Readiness Have Been Resolved. NCSX VVSA & MCWF Final Design Review May 19-20, 2004

  9. PDR 12– Increase VV bakeout temperature to 350 C. Final design satisfies this requirement. PDR 30– Follow through on in-progress diagnostic integration efforts. Extensive final design effort led to significant modification of port configuration. Additional ports will increase VVSA costs. PDR 10– Fix inconel-to-stainless transition point in port extensions. Location chosen just outside modular coil shell. PDR 11 / PBR 4– Investigate alternatives for final assembly welds. R&D program budgeted and in progress. Technical Recommendations Affecting VVSA Procurement Readiness Have Been Resolved. - 1 NCSX VVSA & MCWF Final Design Review May 19-20, 2004

  10. PDR 15– Thermally cycle VV sectors above bakeout temperature. Specified for production units, but not for 20-deg prototype due to limited relevance. PDR 15– Treat first sector as a prototype; allow staged sector delivery. Manufacturing & QA plan provides in-process oversight and inspection needed to ensure conformance w/ spec for all three sectors. Requirements were revised to allow (not require) staged sector delivery. Technical Recommendations Affecting VVSA Procurement Readiness Have Been Resolved. - 2 NCSX VVSA & MCWF Final Design Review May 19-20, 2004

  11. Budget for VVSA ($2.9M) and MCWF ($4.8M) = $7.7M Based on suppliers’ budgetary estimates for the PDR (Oct., 2003) Risks Project decision to add 33 ports in final design. We estimate the impact at $0.3M. Cost growth in some of the manufacturing steps. Some growth expected based on R&D to date (Viola, Heitzenroeder) Risk Mitigation Competition (two suppliers each) keeping downward pressure on cost. Budget contingency: $3M (40%) associated with these components. Cost growth expected to be within this amount. VVSA and MCWF Risk Management: Cost NCSX VVSA & MCWF Final Design Review May 19-20, 2004

  12. Delivery Requirements Need VVSA: Nov., 2005 (3.4 months of free float) Need MCWF #1: Dec., 2004, MCWF #18: April, 2006 (critical path) Risks Cost growth exceeding $1.4M might stretch out the schedule due to cash flow limitations. Production schedules might not meet requirements. Near-term procurement or design delays might delay award. Risk Mitigation MCWF: split the order between the two suppliers. VVSA: use schedule float. Procurement: suppliers already working on proposals as contract deliverables, and already reviewing drafts of the final design specs and SOWs. Design: drawings and models are complete and in final checking. Hope to incorporate FDR conclusions and release by June 1 (VVSA) and June 7 (MCWF). VVSA and MCWF Risk Management: Schedule NCSX VVSA & MCWF Final Design Review May 19-20, 2004

  13. VVSA and MCWF designs meet their requirements • At the system level (B. Nelson, W. Reiersen) • At the subsystem and component level (VVSA and MCWF breakouts) • Adequacy of product specifications has been demonstrated. • Final design models, drawings, specs, and SOWs are ready. • Suppliers are using similar specs to build prototypes. • Have successfully handled product data flow: designmanufactureinspect • Suppliers have been qualified via manufacturing R&D. • They have developed solutions to fabrication and inspection challenges. • Prototype fabrication, still in progress, is demonstrating capabilities. • The procurement plan we have been following since 2002 is working well. • Two qualified suppliers for each component. • They have the experience and information to prepare sound and timely proposals. We Are Ready to Proceed with VVSA and MCWF Procurement NCSX VVSA & MCWF Final Design Review May 19-20, 2004

More Related