1 / 9

Pixel Support Tube: Cost and Production Schedule

This document provides a detailed schedule and cost summary for the production of the Pixel Support Tube (PST) for the Pixel Detector. It includes information on the deliverables, prototype schedule, production summary, important milestones, potential risks, and cost summary.

stacim
Download Presentation

Pixel Support Tube: Cost and Production Schedule

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. Pixel Support Tube:Cost and Production ScheduleSeptember 2002 N. Hartman LBNL

  2. PST Deliverables • 3 Composite tubes • 6 Bonded composite flanges • Full Length insertion rails • Mount pads at forward and barrel (8 total) • PST Supports (8 flexures) • Pixel detector supports (kinematic, 4 total) • Heaters and EMI shielding (continuous over length) • PST must be delivered as three bonded assemblies • Barrel mount pads are bonded while in dry fit with SCT • Forwards must be mounted to guarantee alignment • All must be delivered by June ’04 • Installation work costed in separate installation plan • SCT installation is Sept. ’04 N. Hartman LBNL

  3. Full Schedule • Note schedule is in calendar years, not fiscal • Production estimate is rough (will know better by end of Q1 FY03) • Based on delivery date of 6/1/04 to CERN • SCT installation date 9/1/04 (3 months slack time) N. Hartman LBNL

  4. Prototype ScheduleCurrent Progress • Note schedule is in calendar years, not fiscal N. Hartman LBNL

  5. Prototype Items • Shells • Completed • Rails • Partially Complete – foot long rails have been made • Lead time of long rail tool is critical • Rail riders must be addressed • Flanges • To be outsourced, not yet complete • Hoop Stiffeners • May not be prototyped (fabricate during production phase only) • Schedule is already tight without them • Mount Pads/Flexures • Mount pads require flat plate material from flange fabrication • If vendor cannot supply in time, must make mount pad material in house • PST Assembly (bonding) • Designing bond tooling is critical item (lead time for machining) • Actual assembly can slip a little and overlap with long rail fabrication N. Hartman LBNL

  6. Production Summary • Prototyping • Continues through Q1 of FY03, but 3 month “slack” exists in Q2 of FY03, while full size mandrel is being machined • Q1 of ’03 is staffed with Research Assistant (FTE) and MT (1/2 FTE) • All production tooling produced in near-final form in prototype phase, except for mandrel • Prototype flange production contract covers tooling that will be used to fabricate production flanges as well (but under additional contract) • Production • Begins in Q3 of FY03, Continues to Q4 of FY04 • Production time is staffed with MT (1/2 FTE) • PST Barrel constructed first, in case needed for dry fit with SCT earlier than expected, though many parts will already be made for all sections • Complete PST Delivered June of 2004 N. Hartman LBNL

  7. Important Milestones • Production Readiness Review • December 9, 2002 – CERN • Full Size Mandrel and Material Ordered • January 7, 2002 • Production Material Delivered • February, 2002 • Mandrel Delivered • March, 2002 • Production Begins • April 1, 2002 • Barrel PST Completed • September 14, 2002 • Forward PST’s Completed • June 1, 2002 • Fit-up with SCT (mount pads bonded in place?) • June, 2002 • SCT/PST Installed • September, 2002 N. Hartman LBNL

  8. Potential Risks • Prototyping • Problem with rail riders • Delay of bond or rail tooling • Delay of flange fabrication (contract) • Production • Delays or problems in mandrel machining • Prototype delay eating into production time • Delay in working out mount pad bonding scheme with SCT • Delay in SCT schedule pushing back completion of PST (if dry fit is required for bonding to complete PST) N. Hartman LBNL

  9. Cost Summary • Costs in FY02 $K • ETC02 to ETC03 very similar overall costs • Schedule delay of about 6 months • Production moved from FY03 to FY03/FY04 • Prototyping extended into FY03 N. Hartman LBNL

More Related