ME 217B - Design for Manufacturability
Final Project Report
SLAC-B Team
(NLC Waveguides)
Professors: Kos Ishii & Mark Martin
Stanford University
Team:
Eric Coblin
Clay Fenstermaker
Greg McCandless
Eric Schmidt
Liaison: Jeff Rifkin
Coach: Vikash Goyal
May 30, 2000
Attachment #1-Interview List Pg. 64
1. Executive Summary
The Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC) is a national basic research laboratory,
probing the structure of matter. The laboratory is operated by Stanford University under
contract from the United States Department of Energy (DOE).
Having pioneered the technology of linear colliders and accelerators, the Stanford Linear
Accelerator Center (SLAC), in collaboration with other laboratories, is planning a
powerful new instrument (the Next-Linear Collider, or NLC) that will provide a frontier
facility for basic research on elementary particles. Stretching some 30 kilometers, it will
smash electrons into their antimatter counterparts, creating exotic new particles from pure
energy. The NLC has not yet been approved for funding by the Department of Energy.
A component of the NLC, called the RF (Radio Frequency) DLDS (Delay Line
Distribution System) Waveguide System, will consist of 176 kilometers of precise,
electrically conductive, evacuated tubing to carry microwave power from the power
sources (called Klystrons) to the accelerator structure. SLAC has successfully
constructed a test section of a DLDS Waveguide System at a facility called the NLCTA
(Next Linear Collider Test Accelerator). However, the full-scale NLC Waveguide will
need 500 times more tubing than the NLCTA Waveguide. A more economical design,
construction, and installation process has been defined for the large-scale production of
the NLC Waveguide. The purpose of this report is to detail the product definition, and
product specifications recommended by the SLAC Waveguide team for the full-scale
NLC Waveguide.
We have applied a number of Design for Manufacturability tools on the existing NLCTA
Baseline Waveguide design, including benchmarking, the Value Graph, Functional
Analysis, QFD Phases I and II, Cost Worth Analysis, Fishbone Assembly Sequence,
DFA (Design for Assembly) Calculations, FMEA (Failure Modes and Effects Analysis)
and SMA (Service Modes Analysis). We then used these tools to create the Product
Definition.
Then we used Quality by Design tools as a structured method to actually specify the
preferred design in detail. The recommended design consists of aluminum tubing, with a
5.1” inner diameter. Some tolerances of the tubing, including surface finish and
circularity, are to be defined via a Taguchi designed experiment that is laid out in this
document. The remaining tolerances are also defined. The vacuum level required is
assumed to be 10-7 Torr, which enables the use of quick flange-style joints, end formed
into the aluminum tube. However, the Taguchi experiment will also help define the true
vacuum limit, as there is some controversy as to actual requirement. The tube segments
should be 40 feet long for shipping and handling considerations, while minimizing the
number of joints. Cleaning should be performed via pumps that flow the chemicals
through the ID of the tube sections.
We estimate that this design, when applied to the entire NLC Waveguide, represents a
cost reduction of 45% over the NLCTA baseline design, which equates to $11.5 million.
2. Advertisement
Trying to find a better
way to move your
microwaves?
Microwave transfer occurs in a vacuum,
great ideas don’t. If you need faster,
cheaper, and more robust solutions, you
need the SLAC-B team:
Solving high-power problems
with high-power DFM tools.
3. Table of Contents
1. Executive Summary
1
2. Advertisement
2
3. Table of Contents
3
4. Background
5
4.1
4.2
4.3
Profile/Products
Market/Competition
Requirements/Constraints
5. Product Definition
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
Problem Statement
Benchmarking
Customer Requirements and Product Definition
Product Definition Tools
Final Product Definition
6. Concept Development
6.1
6.2
Establish Criteria
Generate Alternatives
7. Design Recommendation
7.1
7.2
7.3
Product Specification
Implementation Plan
Life-Cycle Plan
8. Competitive Analysis
8.1
8.2
8.3
8.4
Product Cost
Product Features
Development Time/Risk
Business Plan
5
5
6
7
7
8
10
14
14
15
16
18
23
23
43
50
51
51
55
56
56
9. Discussion of ME217 Methods
57
10. Conclusions and Recommendations
58
11. Acknowledgments
61
12. References
62
13. Attachments
63
4.
Background
4.1
Profile/Products
SLAC (The Stanford Linear Accelerator Center) is a Stanford University-operated
research laboratory. It is funded by the DOE (Department of Energy). Founded in 1962,
SLAC began operation four years later upon completion of the Linac (Linear
Accelerator). At SLAC, 1,600 visiting physicists and scientists each year study the
structure of matter.
A staff of over 1,200 people operates the Center’s major experimental facilities. These
facilities include:

The Linac, a two mile long electron accelerator.

The Final Focus Test Beam, a facility researching future accelerator design.

PEP II, An Asymmetric B-Factory.

SSRL (Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Laboratory)

NLCTA (Next Linear Collider Test Accelerator)
In addition to these test facilities, SLAC is involved in a number of research projects,
including the NLC (Next Linear Collider). The NLC will be ten times longer and more
powerful than the SLC. SLAC has created the NLCTA in order to test the key operating
characteristics of the main Linac, this Linac will make up 60% of the future NLC’s
length.
4.2
Market/Competition
SLAC’s business is to provide a research facility to both academic and industrial
researchers from around the world. Competition comes from other similar laboratories
like the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory and the Brookhaven National Laboratory.
Such labs compete for prestige and limited funds for scientific research from the Federal
Government and the DOE.
Currently there is an initiative to design the best configuration for the NLC. Many
Universities and Laboratories/Institutions are working to create optimized designs that
can meet the energy requirements of this NLC. Thus there is informal competition for
funding between these factions.
This is not competition in the conventional sense, as there is also collaboration between
the facilities, including sharing of ideas and information. For example, in the design of
the NLC, the Stanford research group has collaborators in Europe and Japan (KEK).
Differing opinions with respect to project priorities and final construction location create
a healthy competition for decision-making power and technology. However, the value of
the collaboration to pool resources outweighs the costs of internal competition.
4.3
Requirements/Constraints
The technology currently exists to build an NLC that meets the power requirements.
However, there are opportunities to reduce the cost of the current designs. Thus the
features/functionality of the design are constrained, and cost must be optimized.
Approval for the NLC project depends on acceptance by the DOE, followed by passing
of its budget in congress. SLAC’s current design greatly exceeds the DOE’s entire
annual budget for ALL high-energy physics projects combined. The current Waveguide
design represents about 2% of the total cost of the SLAC NLC design. However, design
for manufacturability in the Waveguide system will help move the NLC project closer to
an acceptable total cost.
5.
Product Definition
5.1 Problem Statement
The Waveguide consists of a delay line system made up of 176 kilometers of evacuated,
electrically conductive tubing. Its function is to carry microwaves from the powergenerating Klystrons to the NLC accelerator structure, while minimizing power
consumption and wave distortion. The application of Design for Manufacturability
enables a better understanding of cost drivers and cost reduction opportunities in the
design. Potential opportunities exist in the selection of tube material, tube
geometry/tolerances, tube fabrication, tube joining design and process, tube cleaning
process, and tube section length. All of these constraints, except tube length, are
governed by strict requirements for effective transfer of microwave power through the
Waveguide system.
SLAC Physicists have, to date, provided both material and geometric requirements.
These limit tube fabrication options, as well as the requirements for joint performance.
Qualitative listings of the parameters are as follows:
The material parameters are:
 Electrical Conductivity
 Outgassing Rate
 Joinability
 Strength/Density
The geometry/function parameters are:
 Nominal Tube Thickness
 Nominal Tube ID
 Circularity (Deviation from Mean Diameter)
 ID Surface Finish
 Tube Straightness
 Vacuum Level Required
The tube joint parameters are:
 Ability to provide a vacuum seal
 Ability to provide tube-to-tube alignment
 Ability to provide structural integrity




Ability to allow microwaves to pass without losses (creates certain internal
geometric constraints)
Ability to prevent “Virtual Leak” where gas molecules are trapped in non-sealed
metal-to-metal chambers
Ability to maintain internal cleanliness
Ease of Assembly
Of course, each of these parameters needs to be optimized for functionality and cost.
Numerical analysis of these parameters can be found in the Product Specification section
of this report (Section 7.1).
Other considerations include system cleanliness, strength, and tube length. The
Waveguide system demands that the tubing be extremely clean. There are a number of
critical cleaning steps needed in order to meet the functionality requirements, providing
an opportunity for cost reduction. The Waveguide must also have the strength to with
stand interaction with maintenance personnel. Tradeoffs with material strength, tube
thickness, tube diameter, tube conductivity, and cost must be considered. The last design
consideration is the length of tubing sections used. This parameter is related to a number
of the other design factors, including tube material and geometry, joint design, tube
fabrication process, cleaning process, and ease of handling. The joint design may enable
shorter tube sections, but this increases the number of joints. Conversely, a longer tube
section reduces the number of joints, but may add shipping, handling, and installation
complexity. The selected length of tubing sections also affects the size of the cleaning
tanks required, in addition to the method of handling. The Waveguide Project challenge
is to meet all of the above requirements, while minimizing cost and considering other
factors such as design for variety, serviceability, and recycling.
5.2
Benchmarking
The purpose of benchmarking is to develop a set of parameters to evaluate the
performance of other products that attempt to fill the same need in a similar way.
Benchmarking for the NLC’s Waveguide is somewhat different than benchmarking for
consumer goods products, in that no other “NLC” currently exists. However, there are
benchmarking opportunities.
The primary category of benchmarking includes previously constructed accelerators, such
as the SLC and the NLCTA. The SLC is the existing 2-mile long linear accelerator near
Stanford campus. An archival documentary video, which was made in the 60’s, of the
fabrication and assembly process used for the SLC’s accelerator structure revealed the
techniques of copper tube joining, cleaning, and installation. This revealed a brazing
process that could have proven to be cost effective over the existing NLCTA joints. The
cleaning process, while very thorough, appeared somewhat cumbersome and inefficient;
there may be room for improvement. The second accelerator that was benchmarked was
the NLCTA (a working prototype of a cross-section of the NLC, also at the SLAC
facility), which is the first accelerator to actually use Waveguide delay line technology.
In this facility, high purity extruded copper tubes were used, with section lengths of five
meters (16.4 ft). These tubes were shipped from Japan. Conflat flanges, which are
precision ultra-high vacuum stainless steel joints that use 20 bolts each, were used to
make the joints.
The second benchmarking category includes structures that use large lengths of tubing
like the Trans-Alaskan Pipeline. Though the pipeline’s geometric shape is not nearly as
crucial for the functionality of the system as with the Waveguide, the Trans-Alaskan
Pipeline provided a good comparison of producing, shipping, and joining tubing of an
extremely large quantity. In particular, designers chose a pipe section length of 40 ft.
(12.2 meter), proving that shipping tubing of this length is feasible. However, sections
longer than that may become a shipping issue.
The last benchmarking activity involved comparing different tube fabrication processes.
Tube fabrication processes that were benchmarked included extrusion forming, roll
forming (with mandrel pull post-roll), and centrifugal casting with grinding. End
configurations were machined or formed as well. The benchmarking practice revealed
that centrifugal casting is unable to meet length and internal finish requirements, and
hydroforming lends itself more to formation of complex shapes of smaller size that the
tubing in question here. Further research of extrusion forming, roll forming, and end
forming was conducted. According to Hitachi Cable, a tubing manufacturer that supplied
the Waveguide tubing for the NLCTA project, "roll-forming and the welding" process
needs new specific facilities while "extrusion and drawing" process require ordinary
copper pipe manufacturing facilities. Therefore, "roll-forming and welding" method is
not adopted at any major manufacturer of this product including Hitachi Cables.” In
other words, it is not cost effective, nor is it practiced, to roll-form and weld copper
Waveguide.
These benchmarking activities led us to a baseline design configuration essentially
matching that of the NLCTA. This baseline design was used in the evaluation of
customer requirements and product definition. The assumptions include:

Tube Geometry and Material Selection (Class-1 Copper) (per NLCTA Print # PS290-291-02 E1 Rev D)
5.3

Tube Manufacturing Process (Extruded & redrawn)

Tube Joining Method (Conflat Flanges)

Tube Segment Lengths and Location (Off-site, 5 meter lengths)

Basic Cleaning Process (tube segments transferred through tanks of chemicals)
Defining Customer Requirements and Product Definition.
Along with the results of our benchmarking activities and the functional requirements
given by project physicists, much customer requirement information was obtained
through extensive interviews of various stakeholders (See Attachment #1). The ME217
tools were then deployed, using this information, to prioritize customer needs and design
requirements. The following is a discussion of those tools that were most important in
guiding our design decisions.
5.3.1 Value Graph
The main benefit of constructing the Value Graph for the Waveguide (See Attachment
#2) was derived from the activity itself. Although the ‘why?’ portion was fairly well
defined before the use of the tool, the ‘how?’ portion revealed some interesting insights.
It helped organize the customer requirements and relate system components and
engineering measurements to those requirements. In addition, it created a platform to
work from in generating the Function-Structure Map and QFD Phase I.
5.3.2
Functional Analysis
The Function-Structure Map (See Attachment #3), like the Value Graph, seemed to add
most of its value through the activity of creating it. In addition to preparing team
members for effectively carrying out QFD analysis, it allowed for clearly visualized
relationships between the system functions and the structure.
5.3.3 Customer Value Chain Analysis
The Customer Value Chain Analysis (See Attachment #4) helped to visualize and clearly
document all of the major customers involved in the NLC. Starting internally, the
requirements of the Physicists, Engineers, and Technicians within the SLAC Waveguide
Team need to be met.
Additionally, the Waveguide team members are a potential customer to a number of
material providers, including the sourced supplier of copper tubing, flange/joining
hardware, tube-cleaning equipment, and other installation hardware. These have the
traditional money/complaints traded for material goods relationship. A similar
relationship exists with the construction crew hired to actually perform installation of the
Waveguide, although they are providing a service rather than material goods.
The Waveguide team’s budget comprises a portion of the NLC project team’s total
budget. This team, in turn, has customers at the Department of Energy, which interfaces
with Congress, who is ultimately paid by the taxpayers. In return, all of these parties
have the opportunity to benefit from information and discoveries that are made at the
NLC.
5.3.4 QFD (Phase I)
The Quality Function Deployment of the NLC Waveguide relates the customer
requirements (derived from interviews with various personnel at the SLC) to the
engineering metrics, which are designed to quantitatively measure the requirements.
From the QFD (See Attachment #5) we observed that ‘joint vacuum limit’ (a measure of
the maximum vacuum that a particular joint design will handle) had the highest relative
weight. This metric rose to the top of the list because it affects a great number of the
customer requirements. The unique nature of the Waveguide assembly did not lend itself
to a comparison to other projects, so this portion of the QFD was not performed.
5.3.5 QFD (Phase II)
In the second phase of the Quality Function Deployment (See Attachment #6) the main
components of the Waveguide (the tube and the joint) were broken down further in an
attempt to determine with greater resolution where the real customer value lies. The parts
were then compared with the engineering metrics and relative weights derived from
phase I. The results of this analysis showed that the tubes held 44% of the relative weight
of the design, while the other four parts made up the remaining 56% in approximately
equal portions.
5.3.6 Cost-Worth Analysis
The Cost-Worth Analysis was completed by breaking the price of each Waveguide
component down to a cost/meter metric (See Attachment #7). Because the Conflat flange
joint has an inherent assembly cost, and a different type of flange would have a different
assembly cost, we rolled the labor cost of joint assembly into the associated component
costs. In order to maintain the consistency of the cost vs. worth results, the assembly
costs of the tubing are also included. A table summarizing the source of these costs and
the associated assumptions can be seen in (See Attachment #8). Our analysis revealed
cost/worth ratios for the various components. Each component was then plotted to show
the relationship between its cost and worth. These results indicated, somewhat
surprisingly, that the tubing is the primary candidate for cost reduction with a cost/worth
of 1.61. The stainless-steel portion of the Conflat flange follows as a close second with a
cost/worth of 1.46. However, the combined cost/worth of all the joint components yields
a cost/worth ratio of 0.54. These results indicate that the tubing should be the first target
for cost reduction, and the joints should be the second.
5.3.7 Failure Modes and Effects Analysis
Function-based FMEA- (See Attachment #9)
Pareto Chart- (See Attachment #10)
The process of creating the FMEA is as valuable as its output. The process forces a
structured discussion that results in agreement over assumptions, failure modes, and
causes. The Pareto Chart is an effective summary of FMEA results and is created by
plotting the RPN vs. the cause of the failure. The Pareto chart revealed that the top 4
causes (which were 11% of the total causes) resulted in 39% of the cumulative RPN
values. Of the top 4 causes that were identified, 3 of them were associated with being
able to join the tube in a manner that ensures that the Waveguide remains straight,
concentric, and smooth. This indicates that the joining process will be key to having a
quality end result.
5.3.8 Project Priority Matrix
Feature
t
ep
A
cc
pt
O
C
on
st
im
iz
ra
e
in
Project Priority Matrix
The Project Priority Matrix helped to clarify the
priorities for the NLC’s Waveguide system. In
this case, there is no question that the feature
content MUST be met; otherwise the NLC would
O
be inoperable, which is not acceptable. This
Cost
O
results in the features being the constrained factor.
Furthermore, due to budgetary constraints, cost
Time
O
must be optimized. These first two results
indicate that ‘time’ must be accepted, which is
permissible because the traditional “time-to-market” financial issues do not apply here.
5.4
Other Product Definition Tools
In addition to the tools above, the other ME217 tools of Product Definition were used.
The following tables list those less applicable tools,
Tool
Brief
Appendix
Variety/Complexity
No opportunity for variety in this design
N/A
Recycling Issues
Waveguide is recyclable
N/A
Product Definition
Helped focus team during interviews on areas we
Attachment #11
Assessment Checklist
needed to understand more clearly
VOC-based FMEA-
Function Based FMEA was of more value
Attachment #12
Fishbone Assembly
Allowed us to confirm assembly understanding
Attachment #13
Sequence
with NLCTA personnel
DFA Calculations
Provided documentation of assembly times and
Attachment #14
cycle times
Service Mode Analysis
Provided insight into serviceability issues.
Attachment #15
Serviceability unlikely due to dimensional
Attachment #16
Worksheet
Serviceability Analysis
constraints of Main Linac
Table 1: Product Definition Tools
5.5
Final Product Definition
In the end, the product definition tools led us to clarify what parameters needed to be
considered in successfully moving the microwaves efficiently and cost-effectively from
the Klystrons to the Accelerator Structure. They helped us to seek refinement of the
requirements for material, geometry, joint design, tube segment length, and cleaning, and
they guided our engineering efforts in defining these parameters’ effects on the customer
requirements. They also prepared us for implementation of the next phase of the project,
which was developing the best combination of these parameters by using other ME217
tools that help with brainstorming, and finally product specification, in order to design an
effective Waveguide System.
6.
Concept Development
With the product requirements defined, we were able to proceed on to developing various
design alternatives. The first step in doing this was to select criteria with which we could
judge the merits of each design. Next we generated alternatives for each portion of the
design and assembled them in the form of a Morphological analysis (See Attachment
#17). We then selected four of the most promising designs and compared their strengths
and weaknesses using Pugh Analysis(See Attachment #18). From this analysis, we
selected the most promising of the designs and performed a “reality check” of our results.
After the brainstorming session was completed, the results were presented to SLAC
engineers and physicists, and an additional brainstorming session with them was
performed. During this session, it was revealed that the vacuum requirement that had
been stated during the Product Definition stage was off by two orders of magnitude! A
Physicist1 clearly stated that a vacuum of 10-7 Torr was all that was needed, rather than
the 10-9 Torr that was previously stated.
Therefore, all of the Concept Development tools shown here are somewhat obsolete.
However, the tools led to a deeper understanding of the issues and options at hand. The
result was that after the new vacuum requirement presented itself, a very strong
understanding of the implications were already in place. This made it easier to select a
winning design combination once the new requirement was revealed.
This section will then examine updates to our assumptions, and the effect of these
changes.
1
Sammy Tantawi
6.1
Establish Criteria
Criteria
Weight
Cost
9
Vacuum Seal
7
Serviceability
4
Power Loss
8
Watts/Meter lost
< 20
5
Shut-Downs/ Year
< 0.25
3
Total Time (months)
< 60
Reliability of
Waveguide
Time to Install
Tubing Manufacturing
Process Capability
3
Metric
Total DLDS
Waveguide Cost ($)
Maximum Vacuum
Level in Tube
Mean Time to Repair
(hours)
Tubing
Manufacturer’s Yield
Target
< $30M
<10-9 Torr2
< 12
> 98
Table 2: Design Criteria
6.1.1 Cost
Cost includes both raw materials and installation costs. Because the NLC is currently
above an acceptable total cost, the entire system is being examined for cost reduction
opportunities. We selected the target cost as something that we felt was a reasonable
cost goal. It is important that the Waveguide price tag not exceed this target.
6.1.2 Vacuum Seal
2
Since the time of this initial analysis, the vacuum requirement has been reduced to 10 -7 Torr
The design that is ultimately selected must be able to maintain an adequate vacuum level.
At the time that this analysis was initially conducted, the required level was 10-9 Torr; it
seems to have become acceptable to only maintain 10-7 Torr in the Waveguide3
6.1.3 Serviceability
The design that is used for the Waveguide must allow access to problem areas that need
to be repaired or replaced. There are high costs associated with sections of the
Waveguide being off-line; decreased service-times are therefore desirable.
6.1.4 Power Loss
The Waveguide must allow an adequate amount of power to be transferred from the
Klystrons to the accelerator structure. Reduced power transfer can lead to: increased
operating costs, the need to add additional Klystrons, and the lost research opportunities
that higher energy levels in the system would allow.
6.1.5 Reliability of Tubing Manufacturing Process
The manufacturing process selected for the tubing must be robust enough that the
assembly schedule of the Waveguide will not be jeopardized due to component shortages.
Also the yield must be high enough so that poor quality does not lead to undue costs.
6.1.6 Reliability of Waveguide System
The reliability of the system is important not only because of the maintenance and repair
costs typically associated with this criteria but also because of the high opportunity costs
that are associated with the NLC being off-line. These opportunity costs revolve around
the fact that the NLC will be a unique machine and that lost time cannot be recovered.
6.1.7 Time to Install
Whatever Waveguide design is ultimately selected will need to be assembled in a
reasonable amount of time. While a longer installation plan may be cost effective for the
Waveguide, it will still need to fit within the timeline of the construction of the NLC.
3
Per Sammy Tantawi
6.2
Generating Alternatives
In generating alternatives, we began by brainstorming ideas based on interviews with
SLAC personnel, group meetings with NLC personnel, and contacts with tubing
manufacturers. The alternatives that were generated from these activities are listed as
means in the Morphological Analysis Table (See Attachment #17). These ideas were
then broken down into the categories that resulted from the functional requirements
generated by our Function-Structure Map.
From the Morphological analysis, we chose the following four concepts to be further
explored:
1. Electronic-grade Cu, Extruded, Conflat, 6.1 meters
2. Aluminum, Extruded, E-Beam Weld, 6.1 meters
3. Standard-grade Cu, Roll Formed and post-drawn, Swaged, 12.2 meters
4. Cu-coated Steel, Roll Formed and post-drawn, Brazed, 12.2 meters
These four designs were selected in order to include a wide variety of the options that we
have available to us. Because many of the options for our design are not interrelated, this
would also give us an idea of the merit of individual design properties.
Note that, again, these designs were selected based on the more stringent 10-9 Torr
vacuum requirement. Had the 10-7 Torr vacuum requirement existed earlier, an
alternative set of designs would certainly have emerged.
6.2.1 Concept Analysis
Sketches of the four concepts can be seen in Attachment 19, Concept Sketches.
Concept 1.
This concept is essentially what was used for the NLCTA, and hence is the most
conservative route. The material is OFE (Oxygen-Free Electronic) grade Copper, which
has been extruded and post-drawn, in order to meet the dimensional requirements. It uses
Conflat Flanges to join the tube sections, which means that the ends of the tube get
machined to locate the flanges. Then the Conflat flanges are heated to expand them, and
they are slid onto the machined ends. The Conflat flanges are then Cusil-welded to the
tube. A copper gasket is dropped between the two Conflats. Lastly, 20 bolts are used to
fasten the joint, while a ring is used on the OD to locate the two flanges with respect to
each other. The tube segment length is 6.1 meters (20 feet).
This concept was selected because it is, essentially, the baseline design that is working on
the NLCTA. The only difference is the tube segment length, which was 5 meters in the
NLCTA. It is, however, safe to assume a 6.1-meter length, as a quotation was obtained
stating that that length could be met, but it is the maximum length manageable by this
supplier.4 This is why a longer length was not for the extrusion concepts.
Concept 2
Concept two includes aluminum tubing that is extruded (like the copper in option one),
but the segments are joined via e-beam welded. Segment lengths are again 6.1 meters
due to extrusion limitations. E-B welding consists of placing the tubing in an evacuated
chamber, and using a very precise electron beam to provide enough energy to locally
melt the aluminum. This process allows for a very clean and precise weld necessary for
Ultra High Vacuum systems. However, fixturing and maintaining a vacuum while
meeting dimensional requirements could be challenging. The aluminum material is
cheaper than copper, but not as cheap as steel. It is also lighter and stiffer for ease of
handling. It has the drawback, however, of substantially increased electrical resistivity
(over 50%). This characteristic leads to increased power losses. Also, the tubing
sections need to be joined to the vacuum pumps via Conflat flange-type designs, but
aluminum is very difficult to join to stainless steel.
Concept 3
This concept is an alternative version of concept 1, where a lower grade of copper is
used. A swaging process is used to join the tubes. Tube segment lengths are now 12.2
meters, which is the maximum length that can be shipped on a standard tractor/trailer.
Benefits of this design include an attempt to reduce cost. Roll-formed copper was
considered, but, it may introduce problems with the material at the weld seam, even
4
The supplier has since purchased new equipment allowing the extrusion of 12.2 meter (40 feet) tubes.
though a post-draw is being performed. The uneven grain sizes due to the HAZ (Heataffected zone) of the weld may interrupt the passage of the microwaves. The material
chosen is cheaper, since it is less-pure copper, but the lower-grade material can cause
problems with ‘outgassing’ (the phenomenon of the material releasing contaminants into
the Waveguide chamber due to the extreme vacuum). Lower-grade copper can also cause
RF breakdown, where the signal gets distorted due to impurities. Lastly, lower-grade
copper may not be quite as electrically conductive, which leads to power losses. The
joint method involves forming of the ends of the tubes, again in an attempt to reduce cost
over Conflat flanges. The swaged ends have a shape such that the virtual leak
phenomenon is presumably avoided, by ensuring that there are no micro-chambers that
could be formed if the ends simply overlapped each other. Difficulties with this joining
method include difficulty in obtaining precision location via the joint, avoiding a virtual
leak, and having a geometry that allows the microwaves to pass without distortion or loss.
But the cost reduction potential over the approximately $200 Conflat flanges is
undeniable.
Concept 4
Concept 4 consists of a composite tube, which is made from roll-formed and post-drawn
steel (with minimized outgassing), and a copper coating sputtered on the inner surface.
Since it is roll-formed, the length is a full 12.2 meters. The segments are joined via a
brazed joint as shown in the sketch. This design has a number of potential cost reduction
virtues, such as the use of a tiny fraction of pure copper (compared to the pure copper
choices), and the lower-cost of roll-forming (compared to extrusion) of steel. The
material properties of the HAZ (Heat Affected Zone) are not a problem, because it is the
copper that is carrying the current. Furthermore, a brazed joint (which was designed
during a former DFMEA assignment) may enable a lower-cost, and serviceable joint.
The risks of the design are addressed below in step 6.2.
6.2.2 Concept Selection
The Pugh-type analyses (See Attachment #18) revealed that Concept 4 (Copper-coated
steel that is roll-formed with brazed joints in 12.2 meter lengths) received the best scores.
The overall process is shown in Attachment #20, from raw material to installation into
the accelerator. More detail in the joint design itself can be seen in Attachment #19,
Concept 4. Note that the length between vacuum pumps is approximately 25 meters, and
the connection would be made via Conflat flanges. Hence two 12.2-meter segments
would be joined together to form one long tube segment between vacuum pumps.
6.2.3 Concept Strengths & Weaknesses
The fact that the Pugh-analyses indicated that Concept 4 was the best option was fairly
surprising to us. We expected the current NLCTA design (option 1) to be the victor from
this process. The superiority of option 4 become more reasonable upon examining how it
came about. Its performance derives primarily from its reduced cost in material and
joining method along with still having the desirable characteristics derived from its
coating of the more expensive electrical-grade Copper. This allowed it to be “the best of
both worlds” when it came to the Pugh-analyses.
Several assumptions were required to reach this conclusion, and if they prove untrue, our
selection might change. The first assumption is that roll-forming with post-draw of steel
will meet the geometric tolerances required for the tubing, and will be cost-effective.
Steel is also known to ‘outgas’ more than copper, so that the material would need to be
carefully selected. The assumption was made that an appropriate steel can be found. The
third assumption is that the copper coating process (presumed to be sputtering) will be
cost-effective and reliable without peeling5. The last assumption is that the brazed joint
will meet the UHV requirements. These assumptions could end up being weaknesses in
the design. While these assumptions may seem somewhat generous, it should be noted
that physicists have used a copper-plated steel tubing system in the past to carry UltraHigh Vacuum. The team will study this system further. Once some of these points are
more thoroughly understood, we will revisit this analysis to see if a better design proposal
emerges.
5
Further research has shown that while the coating process may be reliable, it is not cost effective. See
“Section 8a Competitive Analysis-Cost” for more details.
6.2.4 Assumption Updates
The major changes in the assumptions that were used in creating our initial design
options are: 1) Aluminum is actually by far the cheapest tubing material, when compared
to the cost of copper6 and copper coated steel7; 2) It is not cost effective, nor is it
practiced, to roll-form and weld copper Waveguide tubing8; 3) Vacuum requirements are
only 10-7 Torr9, allowing alternative joining methods to be considered.
When the requirements for the quality of vacuum were relaxed, a third brainstorming
session was conducted with the group and liaison. It became apparent that a cheaper,
simpler joint known as a quick flange could be employed. The joint also enabled the use
of aluminum, which is by far the lowest-cost material. See the next section for further
detail.
6
Per www.matls.com
Per Ali Farvid, SLAC plating expert
8
Per Hitachi Cable
9
Per Sammy Tantawi
7
7.
Design Recommendations
7.1
Product Specification
The product specification section is divided into five sections:

Material

Geometry

Joint Design

Tube Segment Length

Cleaning.
Each section will go through the selection criteria and make recommendations on the
specifications. These recommendations are based off of the new vacuum requirement of
10-7 Torr.
7.1.1 Material
There were three main materials under consideration:

Copper (101, 102, or 110)

Composite (Steel coated with a thin coating of copper on the inside)

Aluminum (6061-T6)
The criteria for a successful material include

Cost

Electrical Conductivity

Outgassing rate

Joinability

Strength/Density
This section will run through the benefits and drawbacks of each material with respect to
the above criteria, and will justify the choice of 6061-T6 Aluminum as the recommended
material.
Copper
Since this is a vacuum system that also needs to carry electricity, copper is the first
logical choice. It has low electrical resistivity (1.7 x10-6 Ohm-cm)10, and good
outgassing properties (~1x10-13 Torr-liter/sec/cm2.)11 It can also be brazed, cusil welded,
or even directly welded to other materials such as stainless steel, which was used for the
joints in the NLCTA.
Ultra high purity, OFE (Oxygen-Free Electronic) grade copper was used for the tubing in
the NLCTA. This copper is known as 101, Class 1 copper. It is what SLAC uses for all
its ultra-high vacuum Waveguide systems. However, this material appears to be overkill
for this application. First of all, Oxygen content is critical only in those applications
where the copper goes through a high-temperature brazing oven, where the oxygen
pockets expand and cause outgassing problems.12 Most small Waveguide components
that SLAC works with do go through this process, but this tubing will not. Secondly, due
to the fact that the vacuum requirements are 10-7 Torr instead of 10-9 Torr, contaminants
in the copper that could produce outgassing may not be as big an issue.
Therefore, in order to save cost, 102 or 110 copper could be considered. 102 copper is
like 101 copper, but slightly less pure. It has been quoted as between 0% to 20% cheaper
than 101 class one copper. However, there is little difference in cost between 102 grade
copper and 110 (generic) grade copper. Therefore, if copper were selected, 102 grade
copper should be strongly considered. However, copper is nearly twice as expensive as
Aluminum for the same volume13, and is denser by a factor of 3.3, and not quite as
strong14. These factors would have implications on the handling of the length of tubing
segments, if copper were ultimately selected.
10
Per Mike Neubauer
Per “Compilation of outgassing data, Document no. ETM 82-001, Plasma Physics Laboratory, Princeton,
NJ, February 1982” AND Young, J.R., “Outgassing characteristics of stainless steel and aluminum”,
General Electric Company, Analytical Measurements Business Section, NY, October 1968
12
Per Chris Pearson
13
Per http://www.onlinemetals.com
11
Composite Coated Tubing
After the completion of the Pugh Analysis, this option stood out as the best alternative. It
combines the benefit of an inexpensive material (steel) with the high conductivity of
copper. It also provides the opportunity to combine the set-up for cleaning the tubing
with coating the tubing.
Copper Wire Inside (+)
Steel Tube (-)
Sealed ends
FLOW
Chemical Tank
Pump
The copper coating process is a long and multi-step procedure. It involves a set-up
similar to what is shown above. A thick wire would be tightly fastened in tension
through the ends of the sealed tube. A charge would then be applied across the wire and
the tube. Electrolytic fluid would then be circulated through the tube, and metal
molecules would pass from the wire to the tube. There are actually a series of steps that
involve cleaning, etching, preparing, and depositing the materials onto the tube ID, so a
number of different chemicals would be needed. Nickel wire would be used first in order
to improve adhesion of the copper; then finally the copper wire would be fed through and
deposited. However, this basic set-up could be used for the cleaning process as well, so
all of the capital equipment cost could be shared.
The details of this process were determined through discussions with experts at SLAC15,
who had successfully performed such processes on very small stainless steel tubing. The
one issue is that even with the best coatings, there are micro-patches of the surface that
remain uncoated. This could have negative effects on outgassing of the parent material,
as well as dielectric breakdown due to contaminants stuck at the interface. To solve the
14
15
Per http://www.matls.com
Ali Farvid
outgassing issue, stainless steel would need to be used, which eliminates a lot of the cost
benefit. Also, and perhaps more importantly, the cost of the additional chemicals
required to perform the coating far outweighs whatever material savings may exist.
(Refer to section 8.1.5: Plating and Cleaning Costs for details.) It turns out that the
individual at SLAC who was using this process16 was not worried about outgassing or
cost; he chose this process because of the very good surface finish attainable on the
copper coating through micro-etching, and because of stainless steel’s improved strength
over solid copper.
Aluminum
Aluminum is another candidate material. Its electrical resistivity (2.82 x10-6 Ohm-cm)17,
while not as low as copper, is not bad. Plus the diameter of the tube can be increased in
order to meet the equivalent resistivity of the 4.75” ID copper tube. It also has
comparable outgassing properties for a given surface area (~1x10-13 Torr-liter/sec/cm2.)18
Its main drawback is the fact that it cannot easily be brazed or welded to other materials
such as stainless steel. Stainless steel to aluminum transition material exists for welding
the two materials, but the transition material is costly, and using it is difficult. This has
presented problems in ultra-high vacuum environments in the past, due to the fact that
Conflat flanges are generally made of stainless steel. There are aluminum Conflat
flanges, but they have historically performed poorly, because the knife-edge portion of an
aluminum flange is not hard enough to properly seal with the gasket19. Efforts have been
made to coat aluminum knife-edges with Titanium Nitride to harden the surface and
improve the seal, but this set-up is simply not as robust as a stainless steel knife-edge.
16
Dieter Walz
Per Mike Neubauer
18
Per “Compilation of outgassing data, Document no. ETM 82-001, Plasma Physics Laboratory, Princeton,
NJ, February 1982” AND Young, J.R., “Outgassing characteristics of stainless steel and aluminum”,
General Electric Company, Analytical Measurements Business Section, NY, October 1968
19
Per Dan Wright
17
However, with the vacuum requirements changed to 10-7 Torr from 10-9 Torr20, the use of
Conflat flanges is no longer required. It is well documented that joints that use elastomer
o-rings can be used at this lower-grade vacuum.21
The strength, density, and cost implications of Aluminum are far superior to copper, as
previously mentioned. The only question is which grade of Aluminum would be best,
and what size would be required to meet the power consumption of the 4.75” ID copper
tubing baseline design.
SLAC engineers had already researched aluminum for this application, and had
recommended 6061-T6.22 This seems a logical choice, as it combines relatively high
strength, good workability, and high resistance to corrosion, and is widely available.
However, it should be noted that there are other grades, such as 1350 and 6101, which
have higher electrical conductivity, and 6005A, which is easier to extrude with better
surface finish.
The size required to meet the electrical conductivity of the copper tube is performed as
follows:
The increase in RF resistivity of Aluminum is proportional to the square root of
the DC resistivity. Increase in resistivity = (2.821/2/1.871/2) = 22.8%
To counteract this increased resistivity, we need to decrease the power loss to
100/122.8 = 81.4% of its current levels.
This decrease in power loss is enabled by an increase in the diameter of the tube.
The decrease in power loss is proportional to the cube of the I.D. of the tube.
Therefore, 81.4%=4.753/X3; X=5.09".
20
Per Sammy Tantawi
Per MKS Instruments Vacuum Products Group Literature, Series 31 HPS ISO-KF Fittings;
http://www.mksinst.com
22
Mike Neubauer
21
This indicates that an aluminum tube with an ID of 5.1” will have approximately
the same power-loss as our base case copper tube.
Note that there are other sizing issues that are discussed in the next section.
7.1.2 Geometry/Parameters
The geometrical parameters that need to be defined include the nominal values and
tolerances of those parameters critical to the successful transmission of the microwaves
while minimizing power loss and distortion of the wave. The main parameters include:

Nominal tube thickness

Nominal tube ID

Circularity (deviation from mean diameter)

ID Surface Finish

Tube straightness

Vacuum level required.
The thickness relates to the electrical conductivity of the material, as well as to impact
resistance, and the ability of the tube to hold vacuum without distorting at atmospheric
pressure. Per the “wrench drop tests” at SLAC (used on copper, but aluminum is slightly
stronger so it should still hold), the thickness should be no less than around 0.125”. Now
a check must be made to ensure that there is not too much radial distortion due to the
atmospheric pressure acting on the evacuated tube.
Patm=101.3 KPa
Pinternal=~0 KPa
t
D

Using force equilibrium,
Patm * ( D  2t )    * 2t
so
  
Patm * ( D  2t )
2t
or
  
101.3KPa * (0.130m  0.00635m)
 2.17 MPa
2 * 0.003175m
Now,
  
 
E

2.17MPa
 0.00313%
70.4GPa
So the change in circumference is
 * C  3.13x10 5 *  * .127 M  1.27 * 10 5 m
which corresponds to 4.1x10-6 m, or .0002”, on the diameter. (D=C/). This is about an
order of magnitude less than the tolerance of the diameter, so the radial stiffness of such a
tube should not be an issue.
This thickness also affects the tube ID required due to its effect on electrical conductivity.
Per the above, for a .125” thickness, the aluminum tube nominal ID should be 5.1”.
However, the ID of the tube also affects the spacing required between vacuum pumps,
both through flow restriction of the pipe and through outgassing of the material. The
following is a schematic of the system:
LP
L
P0
LP
L
PL
L
P0
L
PL
LP=length between pumps
P0
P0=minimum pressure
PL=maximum pressure
Vacuum
Pump
Vacuum
Pump
Vacuum
Pump
In this scenario, the following equation describes the spacing required between pumps:23
LP
L
2
PL


qB 1  1 
S
2
C
p


where q is outgassing rate of material per surface area, B is the perimeter of the tube xsection, SP is the pump speed, and C is the fluidic Conductance of the tube.
Aluminum and copper have approximately the same outgassing rate, q. So in order to
maximize the required distance between pumps in either scenario, the geometry is the
only available control factor. It is desirable to maximize C, and minimize B, or in other
words, maximize
C
The equation for C, the fluidic conductance of the tube, is24
B
C=(constant) *
D3
L
And of course, the equation for B, the interior surface area, is
23
24
Vacuum Technology, second revised edition, A. Roth, 1982; page 133
Vacuum Technology, second revised edition, A. Roth, 1982; page 84
 D2
B   
 4
So the ratio of



C
D3
is proportional to 2  D . It is therefore beneficial to increase the
B
D
diameter of the tubing in order to reduce the number of pumps required. However, the
diameter cannot be increased indefinitely, due to packaging constraints in the tunnel,
material costs, and handling issues. The 5.1” diameter required to match the 4.75”
copper tubing conductance appears to be a good compromise.
Note that there are also certain “forbidden” diameters that must be avoided in order to
carry the Waveguide. The designing physicist must take this into account when the final
wave type is chosen.
As for the other parameters, it may seem that a closed-form solution exists to determine
the required geometric tolerances and vacuum levels in order for the tubing to be
optimized for microwave transmittal. However, it was found that specifications were
very loosely and often verbally defined; and the true physics of the situation are only
understood by a few experts mixed within the organization. These experts often changed
the requirements mid-project, as was the case with the vacuum requirement and the
straightness requirement. It appears that in building the NLCTA prototype structure, the
tightest possible manufacturable tolerances were specified. There is then a temptation to
carry these tolerances over to the NLC, since the system functioned in testing. However,
there may be opportunities to ease up on tolerances in order to reduce manufacturing
costs. It is for this reason that we recommend a Taguchi Designed Experiment to
determine the true effect of the more precise parameters on power loss and wave
distortion. In order to determine which parameters to study, a comparison of the
tolerances called for on the NLCTA print25 was compared to standard tolerances for
extruded and drawn tubing.26
25
26
NLCTA Print # PS-290-291-02 E1 Rev D
Per the Aluminum Association Inc.
Dimensions for 5" ID tubing
SLAC NLCTA Spec Standard Extrusion Standard Drawn
Circularity (Deviation
from mean diameter)
Surface Finish
Straightness
Thickness
+/- 0.005"
32 microinch RMS
.010" per 24"
+/- 0.010"
+/- 0.050"
0.003" max
.010" per 24"
+/- 0.0125"
Table 3
+/- 0.016"
0.005" max
.010" per 24"
+/- 0.006"
Note that while the straightness and thickness are within standard process capabilities, the
circularity and surface finish requirements are more difficult to obtain for the
manufacturer. Therefore, circularity and surface finish should be part of the Taguchi
experiment.
A third parameter that would make sense to study is that of vacuum requirement. The
switch from 10-9 Torr to 10-7 Torr may mean that there is further opportunity. It should
also be confirmed that poorer vacuum is tolerable.
An L4 Array appears below:
Trial Number
Vacuum
Circularity
Surface Finish
1
10-6 Torr
0.005”
32 -inches RMS
2
10-6 Torr
.016”
125 -inches RMS
3
10-8 Torr
0.005”
125 -inches RMS
4
10-8 Torr
.016”
32 -inches RMS
Table 4: Taguchi Array
Note that each trial should be performed several times, and in random order. It may be
difficult to switch out the tubing segments between experiments, so perhaps sequential
experiments could be performed at the expense of potentially tainted data due to
environmental noise such as ambient temperature and humidity.
The data could then be studied for S/N ratios and mean effects, and appropriate values
could be set based on the results.
This array of tests would not only provide SLAC with definitive, documented data on
how the parameters affect the output, but would also give SLAC the opportunity to try
out some of the new design features in the NLCTA (i.e. aluminum tubing).
7.1.3 Joint Design
Initially, the joint design was thought to be the greatest opportunity for cost reduction in
the system, due primarily to the high cost of Conflat Flanges. However, after performing
a cost-worth analysis, it was apparent that there was a much greater cost reduction
opportunity in the tubing. But when the tubing material was changed from copper to
aluminum, the joint design became a larger percentage of the cost. Furthermore, after the
vacuum limit was changed from “ultra high vacuum” (UHV) to “high vacuum” (HV), the
joint design became much easier to tackle. This section will detail the proposed high
vacuum joint with viton o-rings.
The proposed high-vacuum joint, commonly referred to as a quick flange, consists of a
mostly “off-the shelf” design, with a small twist.
There are very robust HV joints on the market, the
main one functioning as shown in the sketch on the
left.27 It can be seen that the joint consists of a
flange that houses a centering ring on its interior,
and a clamp on the exterior. Between the two is a
polymer o-ring. The centering ring, as the name
implies, locates the two flanges with respect to each
other. The clamp consists of a single fastener that is
easily accessible, as compared to the 20 bolts on the
Conflats.
27
Image from MKS Instruments Vacuum Products Group Literature, Series 31 HPS ISO-KF Fittings;
http://www.mksinst.com
The flanges on these joints are often made from aluminum, since there are no knife-edges
involved, and the seal is made with an elastomer o-ring. As a result, it would be
relatively simple to mimic the shape of the flanges into the ends of the aluminum tubes
via end finishing equipment. This solution provides a proven, robust geometry to
minimize risk, while integrating functionality into the tube to minimize part count and
cost.
Also note that the clamshell arrangement of the clamp allows for assembly of the clamp
after both ends of the tube have been formed, unlike the ring clamps of the Conflat
flanges. These components are not cheap (see cost section), but they are a lot less
expensive than the Conflats.
There are a couple of other considerations with this joint. One is the fact that while these
joints are readily available at diameters up to 2”, and there are a few components
available in up to 4” diameter, a 5.1” diameter fitting was not found on the market.
Secondly, while indications are that end-forming equipment exists to shape smaller
tubing diameters28, the ability to end-form the 5.1” ID tubing needs to be studied further.
Another consideration is serviceability. It is easy to open the clamp, but lateral motion is
required to get the centering ring (and hence the o-ring or an entire tube segment) in and
out. This lateral motion could be obtained by cooling the tunnel so that the miles and
miles of tubing contract enough to get the ring out, or bellows with lateral compliance
could be employed in the system.
The last potential issue is radiation. It is well known that elastomers do not survive well
in radioactive environments. Most elastomers break down, and become brittle after
excessive exposure. A small study was performed to ensure that the o-rings would not
fail due to radiation.29 The weakest of the elastomers from a radiation standpoint is Butyl
28
29
http://www.t-drill.com
with the help of Dan Wright, an experienced engineer at SLAC
rubber, which can only handle about 104 Gy before mild to moderate damage30. (See
Attachment #21, General relative radiation effects: Elastomer)
The amount of radiation in the tunnel at the DLDS is expected to be around 1 x 105 rad
per 10 years, or 1 x 104 rad per year.31 There are 100 rads in 1 Gy, so the o-rings will be
exposed to 100 Gy per year.
Therefore, Butyl rubber o-rings would last 100 years before there were any signs of
radiation damage. However, Butyl rubber is not even under consideration. Viton and
Silicone are nearly a full order of magnitude more resistive. So the bottom line is that
with these assumptions, radiation damage should not be a problem. However, a more
detailed analysis of the actual radiation amounts at the final location of the DLDS system
is recommended before a final material choice is made.
7.1.4 Tube Length
There are a number of considerations in specifying the tube length. They include

Manufacturing location

Distance between pumps

Shipping method

Manufacturing process

Handling considerations

Joint design and cost

Cleaning process design
At first glance, it may seem that the tubes should be as long as possible in order to
minimize the number of joints. However, as the following paragraphs illustrate, other
constraints suggest that the tube segment length should be approximately 12.2 meters (40
feet) long.
Beynel, P et al, “Compilation of Radiation Damage Test Data, Part III: Materials used around highenergy accelerators”, General relative radiation effects: Elastomer
30
Manufacturing Location:
Manufacturing location plays a role in tubing length specification because if the tubes are
manufactured on-sight, there is no reason to take into account shipping constraints. As
such, one could in theory produce enormously long tubing sections, and feed them down
the tunnel. This strategy seemed at the beginning of the study to seem like a viable
option, since it was though that the joints were the most expensive element, and longer
tube sections reduce the number of joints. It was also thought that 176km of tubing was a
tremendous volume that would essentially justify the building of a plant. It is now
known, however, that this volume of tubing is not considered terribly high by tubing
manufacturing suppliers, as several suppliers eagerly supplied quotes without flinching at
the volumes. Beyond this fact, however, there are a number of other practical reasons
why this strategy makes little sense.
The main reason is that the construction of the tubing is a one-time operation for SLAC.
As such, it makes little sense to invest in the capital equipment, and to temporarily create
or hire the required knowledge base to make such a manufacturing process work
smoothly. Enormous cost and time would be spent learning and perfecting the process,
and when that process were finally perfected, the run of 176 km would be done.
According to an outsourcing expert in the medical devices field32, companies should
choose to outsource when:

There is a resource limitation.

The requirements are temporary.

There is a push to adopt the best practices from experts in the given field.

There is a drive to reduce time to market.

There is a drive to improve financial performance.
All of these, with the possible exception of “reduce time to market,” apply to this
situation.
31
Per Mike Neubauer
Distance between Vacuum Pumps
Even if infinitely long tubes were desired for cost reductions, as it turns out, the vacuum
pumps are currently spaced approximately 48.8 meters (160 feet) apart.33 This limits the
tube length to 48.8 meters before some sort of joint is required, so that the pump T-joints
can be installed.
Shipping Method
The next constrain on the tube length includes the method of shipment. Basically, if the
tubes are to be transported by truck during any part of their journey from the
manufacturing location, they will be limited to approximately 12.2 meters (40 ft) in order
to avoid special provisions such as “wide-load” or “long load” escort vehicles. It is hard
to imagine that the tubes can be shipped in a manner such as to avoid truck shipments
altogether.
Manufacturing Process
The two main manufacturing processes under consideration include roll-forming and
extruding. Either one would have to be followed by a post-draw to obtain the tolerances
required. Roll-forming is a continuous process, and as such, tubes can be made into any
length whatsoever. Extrusion, however, includes the use of a billet of finite material
volume (length and diameter), which is squeezed through a die. This finite material
volume, along with finite press strength (which limits the diameter change capable from
billet to tube) can limit the maximum tube length capable from an extrusion process.
This appears to be one reason why the NLCTA used 5-meter (16.4 ft) tubing section
lengths. In soliciting quotes for this NLC project, at first, an extrusion company was only
willing to produce up to 6.1-meter (20 ft) lengths. However, after a second round of
quoting, the company acknowledged that they had obtained a larger press, and that 12.2
meter (40 ft) sections were possible, so long as the support packaging were provided.34
Per “Outmaneuvering the Competition through Outsourcing,” Medical Device Executive Portfolio, 1999,
Carol Nast
33
Per Mike Neubauer
34
Per quotation round 2 from Senatco Copper, See Attachment #25
32
The material for the quote happened to be copper, but presumably the same capabilities
would apply to aluminum. Thus with either process, the process itself is not as much a
limitation on length as the shipping requirements mentioned above.
Handling Considerations
Thus far, 12.2-meter (40-ft) segments seem the ideal length, as they are the largest
shippable length, but are smaller than the distance between pumps. However, there are
also other handling considerations, namely that of how to handle 40-ft long tubing
without damaging or yielding it. Once a structure is created that requires two forklifts to
handle, it becomes significantly more difficult to handle than one that can be handled
with a single forklift. Two operators are required to work simultaneously and in careful
coordination to avoid damage and obtain proper placement. Such skilled operators in
such abundance are not always available, and frustrated operators in a rush are likely to
try to move the parts alone. As such, a calculation was performed to determine if 12.2meter (40-ft) aluminum tubing of the specified material and dimensions would yield if
lifted by the center. Consider the following sketch:
L = 12.2 meters (40 ft)
D = .133 meters (5.225”) nominal
t = .00318 meters (.125”)
R
L
4
F1  LA
F2 
F1
2
Now, to calculate F1 ,  =2.7 g/cc for 6061-T6 Aluminum.
F1  LA  2.7 g / cc *1,219.2cm * *13.27cm * .318cm
 43.64kg * 9.81N / kg  428.1N ( 96.17lb )
so,
F2 static 
F1
 214.1N
2
However, this bar is likely to see 1 to 1.5 g’s of acceleration during lifting or bouncing at
its natural frequency. Therefore,
1kg 

F2 dynamic  ma   214.1N *
 * 1.5 g *
9.81N 

m
s 2  320.8 N
g
9.8
Now, in order to calculate the maximum stress in the tube, the following equation is
employed:
 max 
My max
I
where
M  ( F2 dynamic  F2 static ) * R  (320.8 N  214.1N ) * 3.05m  1,631.2 N  m ,
y max 
D
 .066m
2
and
3
D
I     t   * (.066m) 3 * .00318m  2.92 x10 6 m 4
2
Therefore,
 max 
(1,631.2 N  m) * (.066m)
 37.1Mpa
2.92 x10 6 m 4
This is about 13.5% of the yield strength of 6061-T6 aluminum (275 MPa35), which is
probably acceptable.
An alternative form of transport (once the tubing has arrived on-sight) may be to simply
carry it on the two ends. In this scenario, consider the following:
Again, with L=40 ft, F1static = 96.2 lb, so F2 
F1
 48.1 lb, which is manageable by a
2
person with some sort of device that transfers the load to the back.
In order to determine the peak stress,
 max 
where, in this case,
35
Per www.matls.com
My max
I


4.45 N  
4.45 N 
M  ( F2 static  F2 dynamic ) * R    48.1lb *
   48.1lb *
 * 1.5 g  * 6.1m  3,263.5 N  m
lb  
lb 


So the peak stress in this scenario is:
 max 
(3263.5N  m) * (.066m)
 72.7Mpa
2.92 x10 6 m 4
This value is about 26.4% of the yield strength of the aluminum, which is also probably
acceptable.
Therefore, 12.2 meters (40ft) is a reasonable limit for stress and handling considerations.
Note that if copper were chosen, due to a density increase of a factor of 3.2, the loads on
the ends of a similarly dimensioned pipe would be about 150 lb, and the peak stress in the
center would approach the yield strength of copper, making this handling method
impossible.
Joint Design and Cost
Of course, if the joints were by far the most expensive element in the system, the
difficulties in shipping and handling longer than 40-ft tubing sections would be further
considered to reduce the number of joints. However, as is visible from the cost model,
with a joint every 12.2 meters, joints are not a major cost driver at the system level.
Cleaning Process Design
The cleaning process for the NLCTA consisted of dipping the tubing sections in a series
of chemical baths sequentially in order to end up with clean tubes. However, these tanks
need to be as long as the tube segments, which presents additional handling difficulties in
the transfer of the tubes, and the costs of the cleaning facility. Another option (discussed
in the Cleaning section) is to plug the ends of the tube sections and flow fluid through
them. However, as the tube sections grow longer, the amount of pressure required to
drive the fluid through the tube grows linearly, which drives up the costs of pumping and
pressure capability of the cleaning system. Again, 40-ft length segments seem like a
reasonable limit.
So the team recommends tube segment lengths of 12.2 meters (40 ft.)
7.1.5 Cleaning System
The last system that needs mention here is the cleaning system. When the project was
first started, it was believed that the joints represented the largest opportunity for cost
reduction. Then the cost-worth diagram revealed that the tubing was the best candidate
for cost reduction. In exploring alternative tubing designs, the copper-coated steel option
was considered. In the process of determining the steps and costs involved in plating, it
was uncovered that cleaning of the tubes represents a huge part of the expense. This is
largely due to the expense of the chemicals required, both in procuring them (~1$ per
gallon) and disposing of them in an environmentally sound manner (~$2 per gallon)36
The cleaning system was not reviewed in detail for this project; however, it was noted
that it is an expensive element of the system, and that there may be opportunities to
reduce cost by replacing the traditional series of tanks with a series of pump/reservoir
systems that flow the chemicals through the ID of the tube (similar to the plating process
pictured above.)
This not only minimizes evaporative losses and conserves fluid by only exposing it to the
interior which needs the cleaning, but it also ensures that the sediments that come off
from the inside of the tube get pulled out by the flow of fluid, and that even the deepest
parts of the tubing get a fresh flow of chemicals.
36
Per Ali Farvid, Plating Expert at SLAC
7.1.6 Scorecarding
In order to confirm that the right variables were being defined to affect the final goal (Big
Y), a quality scorecard was performed. The results were as follows:

Project Objective: NLC Project Approval

Objective Measures:




Cost

Performance (Efficiency, Reliability)
Control Factors:

Tube specifications

Joint type
Noise Factors:

Variability in manufacturing process

Interaction with other components (radiation, heat)
Transfer Function:

To be determined by Taguchi DOE & cost models
It appears that all of these factors have been accounted for in the product specification, so
that nothing has been overlooked, and all of the specifications serve towards meeting the
“Big Y” of NLC project approval. In fact, the Taguchi DOE will help define the transfer
functions.
7.2
Implementation Plan
This section will detail the steps required to implement the proposed NLC Waveguide
design. The steps include:

Perform Taguchi DOE (determine aluminum viability & final specs)

Create SOR (statement of requirements), Send out quotes, and choose suppliers.

Tube manufacturing steps

Extrude

Drawing

Form Ends

Machine Ends

Ship

Clean tubes

Cap ends

Transport to tunnel

Install
Each step is further detailed below.
7.2.1 Perform Taguchi DOE (determine aluminum viability & final specs)
It would be beneficial to the SLAC organization to perform a Taguchi Analysis to further
define the specifications of the DLDS Waveguide assembly tubing. For the NLCTA,
SLAC engineers and scientists chose relatively conservative specifications because of the
high cost of failure. For the NLC, it is recommended that SLAC gain a thorough
understanding of which parameters are adding significant cost to the design, and then
adjust those parameters if possible in order to reduce the cost at high volume. Design of
Experiment tools, such as Taguchi
analysis, have helped organizations
reduce costs by relaxing some
tolerances and using others to adjust
the output to maintain or improve
functionality. Developing
specifications that optimize both cost
and functionality is crucial for the
NLC project to gain funding approval.
A detailed Taguchi DOE is specified in the Product Specification section. The NLCTA
has already proven to be beneficial in proving the technology of the NLC on a smaller
scale. It will also prove to be an excellent testing stage for the recommendations of this
project. The current copper tubing and Conflat flanges of the NLCTA’s DLDS
Waveguide assembly could be replaced with the aluminum tubing and aluminum quick
flange High Vacuum joints. Not only will this help define the parameter tolerances
through the Taguchi DOE, but it will also considerably reduce the risk by investing in a
substantially smaller amount in contrast to diving in with the whole 176 km of tubing.
7.2.2 Create SOR (statement of requirements), send out quotes, choose suppliers.
Once the responsible SLAC NLC engineer or physicist has agreed upon the specifications
of the Waveguide tubing and components, the requirements should be documented and
presented to the organization through formal design reviews. This would give the
engineers and physicists a chance to evaluate their peers and make sure that the
knowledge base of the entire organization is capitalized upon. Then quotes from
suppliers need to be gathered for cost comparison and feasibility. The potential suppliers
should hold formal technical reviews outlining their ability to meet the requirements,
plus, of course, their costs. The supplier deemed most capable of meeting the
requirements at a fair price should be selected.
7.2.3 Tube Manufacturing Steps
This section will describe the expected steps involved in making the tubing. However, it
should be said that SLAC should generate the geometry and material specifications
required in order to meet the functional requirements. It makes sense for SLAC
engineers to make sure that these specifications are feasible with modern manufacturing
techniques of some sort, or even to work with a supplier to develop processes that meet
the requirements cost-effectively. However, when the final quotes go out, it would not be
appropriate for SLAC to define HOW the tubing or joint hardware should be made. This
way, suppliers are given the opportunity to innovate in their field of expertise in order to
come up with a competitive bid.
Based on the research performed, it is, however, expected that with aluminum (or
copper), most likely the process will be extrusion followed by post-draw in order to
minimize cost and meet the requirements. The steps involved in this process are detailed
in the following sections.
Extruding
The first step in manufacturing the DLDS
Waveguide assembly is to extrude the tubes.
The extrusion process involves forcing a
billet, which is enclosed in a container,
through an opening whose cross-sectional
area and dimensions are smaller than that of
the initial billet. The cross section of the extruded aluminum will conform to that of the
die opening. See figure above.37
The figure at right38 is an example of a die set
up for producing channel beams. The set up is
the same for most solid shapes. The
manufacturer simply changes the die
components to reflect the different shape.
For hollow shapes, there are two means of
obtaining the hole in the x-section. For nonround shapes, the die includes a solid piece of
steel in the center connected to the rest of the die with bridges. As the material is
extruded, it is actually split by the bridges, and then rejoins before it exits the die, leaving
a hollow shape. For round hollow shapes, such as tubes, a mandrel passes through a
drilled hole in the billet to form the center (since it is easy and cheap to rough-drill the
center of the billets in a round shape). The pictured billets below need to be bored out
before placing them into the extrusion mill.
37
38
from Process and Design for Manufacturing, Sherif ElWakil
from Process and Design for Manufacturing, Sherif ElWakil
Drawing
The extrusion process results in a semi-finished product. To achieve the strict
dimensional requirements, the extruded tubing must be post-drawn. Drawing is a
forming process, which involves pulling a slender product, such as tubes, through a hole
of a drawing die. A few different techniques have been developed for drawing tube,
known as DOM (Drawn Over Mandrel). When tubes having longer length are to be
drawn, a floating mandrel like that shown below is employed.
Tube drawing using a floating mandrel39
Forming and Machining Ends
Once the tubes are finished to size, the next step is to form the ends of the tube that will
integrate with the quick flange joint. Flanging machines, such as T-DRILL’s F-series
39
from Process and Design for Manufacturing, Sherif ElWakil
(shown), form lips and flanges directly on the end of a tube. This saves both time and
costs compared with traditional weld neck flange connections. The ends of the tubes are
going to emulate quick flanges, such as MKS Instruments
Vacuum Products Group,
Series 31 HPS ISO-KF
Fittings. The flanged surface
that meets the o-ring needs to
be machined flat. In addition,
the inside diameter needs to be
machined to tightly fit the
centering ring of the joint. This enables the tubes to remain concentric with each other.
Presumably, the supplier could create a machine that rotates the tubing, forms the ends,
and machines them in one set-up. If not, then two set-ups or machines could be used.
Shipping
The finished tubes need to be sent to
40 feet
SLAC where the waveguide will be
cleaned and assembled. As
described in the Tube Segment
Length section of product
specification, the
length of the tube being shipped should be 40 feet to allow for standard shipping and
handling. Added precautions will need to be taken to ensure that no damage occurs in
transit. It will take approximately 15,000 tubes of 40 feet length to complete the
waveguide system. This results in roughly 75 truckloads.
Cleaning and Capping
Once the tubes arrive at the NLC site, they need to be thoroughly cleaned via a series of
chemicals. For reasons shown in
the Product Specification section,
it is recommended that a means of
cleaning whereby the ends of the tubing sections are capped, and pumps are used to flow
the cleaning agents through the center be employed. Once cleaned, the tubing needs to
be pressurized with nitrogen and capped off for transport. Again, this is conveniently
performed via the quick flange formed ends.
Transporting to Tunnel
After the tube sections have been capped and filled with nitrogen gas, they need to be
transported down the accelerator tunnel. Since the 40-ft tubes weigh about 96 lb, two
workers and a dolly or
forklift can easily perform
12.2 meters
this task. Great care must be
taken to avoid damage in the
final stages of handling.
Assembling/Quality Assurance/Bake-Out
Once the sections reach the site, the quick-flanges can be used to fasten the tube segments
together. The quick-flange is designed such that the tube segments are aligned via a
center ring, sealed via an integral o-ring, and mechanically held together via an outer
clam-shell type ring that employs a simple wing-nut. The joint positions should be
staggered for better access during servicing (if required) as shown.
After the joining of each tube section, Quality Assurance steps must take place to ensure
that the joining process has not compromised the dimensional requirements. For
example, the concentricity and straightness of the tubing sections could to be measured
after each section has been joined via a laser measurement system.
Notice that the implementation plan does not include a bake-out step. This is due to the
assumption that the Waveguide tubes can be baked out while being installed in the NLC,
using the Klystrons to power the bake-out process. There should be ample time during
construction to feed high-power microwaves through the partially-built DLDS, as it is
being built. A schematic of a compilation of all these steps can be seen in Appendix #
22.
7.3
Life-Cycle Plan
The life cycle of this system starts with validation of the sub-systems at the NLCTA. It is
recommended that SLAC take full advantage of this facility in not only testing the
feasibility of the proposed design, but also using it to help define the specifications
through a Taguchi DOE.
Furthermore, during the installation process, it is recommended that each joint be ‘tested’
for straightness and concentricity after it is installed, via a laser measurement system.
Additionally, when breaking for the weekend, the sub-section of tubing that has been
installed can be capped off and evacuated. This lends an opportunity to test the joints for
leaks as the construction progresses, and also gives the opportunity to perform the bakeout as it is being built.
Serviceability was at first thought to be impossible the way the DLDS was designed.
After further discussions with SLAC personnel40 it does appears that the system will have
the lateral compliance required to service the joints and tube sections. The quick flange
joints lend themselves to this method of service. It still may be difficult to access tubes
that are buried deep with in the array of DLDS tubes, but it will certainly be possible.
While aluminum is highly recyclable, the situation is a little bit difficult because of the
fact that there is an irradiated environment inside the tunnel. Therefore most likely the
aluminum could not be recycled for use in consumer goods. Fortunately, the product
should last a long time (i.e. as long as a century), so recycle-ability is not as much of an
issue as it would be for a product with a short life cycle or rapid obsolescence.
40
Per Sammy Tantawi
8.
Competitive Analysis
8.1
Cost
8.1.1 Total Costs
Steel Tube w/
Cu Tube w/
Al Tube w/
Cu &
Quickflange Quickflange Quickflange
(incorporating (incorporating (incorporating
endform)
endforming) endforming)
NLCTA
Material Cost
$
7,701,987 $
Tube Mfg. Costs
$
1,955,307 $
Joint Component Costs $ 6,834,467 $
Joint Assembly Costs $
243,936 $
Plating Costs
$
- $
Cleaning Costs
$
8,784,800 $
Total Cost: $ 25,520,497 $
7,701,987
1,955,307
2,323,162
7,519
6,839,098
$
$
$
$
$
$
2,860,489
1,955,307
2,323,162
7,519
6,839,098
$
$
$
$
$
$
5,861,055
1,955,307
2,323,162
7,519
10,372,951
6,840,060
18,827,073 $
13,985,575 $
Table 5: Cost summary for each of the different options
27,360,054
This table shows a summary of the total costs associated with the various designs that
were considered. The first column describes shows the expected costs of a system using
a design similar to that used on the NLCTA (the baseline for the project), but scaled up to
the NLC volumes. This includes Class 1 copper tubing, with 20 ft. segment lengths, and
Conflat flanges. The second row shows a similar set-up, except quick flange joints
replace the Conflats, and the quick flange shape is integral to the tube ends via end
forming. The third column shows the proposed lowest-cost design, employing aluminum
material with quick flange joints and 40 ft. tube segment lengths. The last column shows
the cost estimates for stainless steel tubing coated with copper on the ID.
The following chart shows a summary of the cost breakdown between the baseline
NLCTA design and the proposed aluminum tubing, quick flange design.
Cost Breakdown: Baseline NLCTA vs.
Proposed Design
25
20
Labor
Hardware/Raw Material
15
10
Tube
Joint
Cleaning
NLCTA
Aluminum
NLCTA
Aluminum
NLCTA
Aluminum
0
NLCTA
5
Aluminum
Cost ($ Millions)
30
Total
The costs are broken down into three major categories: Tube, Joint, and Cleaning.
Within each of these categories, the estimated costs are divided into labor cost and
hardware/raw material cost. Note that the total cost is reduced by approximately 45%,
from $25.5 million to $14.0 million.
The next sections will divulge further detail into how these calculations were obtained.
8.1.2 Material Costs
2' X 5"
Material Round
Copper $456
Aluminum $158
Stainless $347
Cost/
cu.in.
$0.96770
$0.33530
$0.73640
Tube
I.D.
4.75"
5.1"
4.75"
sq. in.
cross- Waveguide
Total Mat'l
section Vol. (cu.in.) Cost
1.9144 13,265,107 $ 12,836,644
2.052
14,218,554 $ 4,767,481
1.9144 13,265,107 $ 9,768,425
Expected Mat'l
Cost (at 40%
discount)
$
7,701,987
$
2,860,489
$
5,861,055
Table 6: Material costs for each proposed design
These costs were primarily derived from price quotes found on www.onlinemetals.com,
for a 2-foot long, 5” diameter round bar. A 40% discount in materials was selected to
account for the high volume; this method provides an “apple-to-apple” comparison.
The tube ID for the different materials was discussed in section 7.a Product Specification.
The calculated volume of material needed for the Waveguide is based on the geometry
required for each material (i.e. Aluminum used 5.1” ID; copper and steel used 4.75” ID).
8.1.3 Tube Manufacturing Costs
Tube Cost (per M. Ton)
$
5,000.00
Tube Cost (per lb)
$
2.268
Copper Density (lb/cu. in.)
0.321
Tube Vol. (cu.in./foot)
22.97
Tube Density (lbs/foot)
7.37
Tube Cost (per foot)
$
16.72
Tube Cost (per meter)
$
54.87
Total Tubing Costs
$
9,657,294
Material Costs
$
7,701,987
Manufacturing Costs
$
1,955,307
Table 6: Derivation of Tube Manufacturing Costs
The tube manufacturing cost is derived from a quote for copper tubing, meeting the
original NLCTA design requirements (See Attachment #23). The quote from Senatco
Copper can be found in Attachment #24. Since the time that the quote was received,
Senatco has stated that, contrary to the attached quote, they would be able to provide 40foot sections (See Attachment #25). The quote was given as $5,000/metric ton. This cost
was translated into a cost per meter. Once the material cost derived above was backedout of this value, we are left with a manufacturing cost. This manufacturing cost was
assumed to be uniform across all three designs. The assumption seems relatively sound
for extruding copper and aluminum. Because of the hardness of stainless steel, it is
unlikely that it could be extruded at this large a diameter. Therefore, for stainless steel, it
is assumed that the tube could be roll-formed at the same cost as the copper tube could be
extruded.
8.1.4 Joint Component and Assembly Costs
Quick Flange Material Cost
Quick Flange Cost with Labor
Conflat Material Cost
Total Conflat Cost with Labor
# of Joints with 40' sections
(Al) and 20' sections (Cu),
and pumps every 160'
$128.74
18,045
$129.16
18,045
$176.51
38,720
$182.81
38,720
Table 7: Flange Costs
Total Flange Costs
$2,323,162
$2,330,681
$6,834,467
$7,078,403
The derivation of the quick flange material costs is shown in Attachment #26 Prices
could not be found for quick flanges that were large enough to handle the tube diameters
that are being considered. Therefore an average of a linear and squared trend was used
from the available prices to estimate the above values. Attachment #27 provides a
graphical representation of these costs. A thirty percent discount was assumed for the
center/o-ring, and clamp portions of the joint, and an additional 40% was removed from
the flange cost to account for the savings in end forming the tube to create the actual
flange portion of the joint directly from the tubing material. By forming the flange
directly into the tubing, the cost of buying the flange and welding it to the tube end are
eliminated. According to the company T-drill, this is a reasonable assumption.41
Another source of savings in end forming actually comes in reduced cleaning costs; refer
to the ‘Cleaning Costs’ section for more information on this. Labor costs for the
assembly of a quick flange is merely $0.41 and is based off a 30 second assembly time
with a $50/hour labor rate. The Conflat flange material costs can be found in Attachment
#8, the cost-worth portion of the QFD. The labor to assemble a Conflat flange is $6.30
and is also derived in Attachment #8. The number of joints required for the Waveguide
is found by dividing the length of the Waveguide by 40’ for the aluminum design, and
20’ for the NLCTA design, and then adding in an extra joint for every pump that needs to
be added to the system.
8.1.5 Plating and Cleaning Costs
Cleaning
Chemicals
Copper w/
Conflat
Copper w/
Quick Flange
Aluminum
Steel
Cleaning
Labor
Cleaning
Hardware
Plating
Material
$ 42,736 $ 7,742,064 $1,000,000 $
-
Plating
Labor
$
-
Plating
Hardware
$
-
Total Cost
$ 8,784,800
$ 32,060 $ 5,808,000 $1,000,000 $
$
$
$ 6,840,060
$ 31,098 $ 5,808,000 $1,000,000 $
$
$
$ 6,839,098
$ 32,060 $ 5,808,000 $1,000,000 $80,151 $9,292,800 $1,000,000 $17,213,011
Table 8: Plating and Cleaning Costs
The above figures were developed with help from Ali Farvid at the SLAC plating
department. A thorough description of the source of these figures can be found in
41
www.t-drill.com/f200400.html
Attachment #28. An important thing to note when examining cleaning costs is that by
end forming the tube to create the flanges for a joint, the cleaning steps required to create
a good weld are eliminated. This saves some cost beyond the savings of not having to
buy and weld the flanges.
8.2
Product Features
The final design chosen has a number of features:

Meets the requirements of the physicists to carry the microwave from the
Klystron to the Accelerator Structure without excessive power loss or distortion

The cost of the proposed system is estimated to be 45% less than the current
baseline NLCTA design (scaled up to NLC volumes)

Aluminum tubing
o The Aluminum tubing’s density and stiffness properties allow for 40 ft.
sections.

40-ft sections weigh only 96 lb, and will not yield under normal
handling.

Shippable with standard tractor-trailer rigs.

Minimizes the number of joints required.

Lower shipping cost due to less mass.
o Since the lower vacuum requirement, stainless steel joints are no longer
required, so joining the stainless steel to the aluminum is a non-issue

Quick Joints
o The end-formed quick flange geometry uses an existing, working seal
design to minimize risk, while integrating functionality into the tube to
minimize cost.
o The quick joint is easy to install, with one wing nut rather than 20 bolts.
o The quick joint is serviceable (assuming lateral compliance in the system
is available)

Cleaning
o Flowing fluid through the tubing rather than dunking the tubing in baths
provides a number of advantages:

Minimizes evaporative losses

Doesn’t waste chemicals on the non-critical OD

Fluid flows through the center of the tube, so no sediments
develop.
8.3
Development Time/Risk
The Waveguide is not on a strict developmental timetable. The NLC project is unlikely
to be approved in the near future, and a general agreement among the physics community
must be reached before a final design is ever selected.
Business Plan
Project Priority Matrix
constrained in its functionality; there is not
Feature
ep
t
pt
im
ra
Co
ns
t
business plan. The final design is
much benefit in exceeding the originally
iz
e
in
complicated issues surrounding its
Ac
c
The Waveguide does not have very
O
8.4
O
planned capabilities of the Waveguide
because other portions of the accelerator
will then become the limiting factor. At
Cost
O
the same time, the other portions of the
accelerator depend on the Waveguide
Time
O
being able to perform up to some
minimum requirements. With this constraint, the cost of the Waveguide must be
optimized in hopes of getting the NLC project down to an acceptable cost level. After
this, the timing of the design process must be accepted.
9.
Discussion of ME217 Methods
During the course of the project, all of the tools presented in class were investigated.
Those that proved most valuable were used as major decision making aids for our design
recommendations. In particular, the QFD/Cost worth and the tools that help prepare for
the QFD exercise were most helpful in defining customer needs and the product
definition. Morphological analysis, brainstorming sessions, and Pugh analysis were all
used to generate and evaluate design concepts that could meet the product definition.
Finally, engineering analysis tools like quality scorecarding and the Taguchi method
helped pin down the final product specification discussed above.
In addition to some of the more useful tools discussed above, there were other tools that
were less applicable to the project. In the product definition phase, design for variety
stands out as an example of a tool that was difficult to apply, not because it is an
ineffective tool, but because variety is not really a factor in the waveguide design. This is
also held true in the product definition phase when Profitability Analysis was difficult to
integrate, because the NLC is not intended to be profitable.
To avoid redundancy, more in depth analysis of the methods are left to the discussion in
their respective sections of this report.

Product definition tools: Section 5

Concept development tools: Section 6

Engineering analysis tools: Section 7
In general, the tools were very useful in guiding the direction of the project. Though not
all the tools could be applied effectively to the project, the class provided an opportunity
to understand and use them. Because we were able to select those methods best suited
for the Waveguide design, an appropriate atmosphere for learning and performing our
engineering design tasks was created.
10. Conclusion and Recommendations
The ME217 tools were effectively applied to the SLAC NLC DLDS Waveguide System
in order to help define a better product than what was baselined (the NLCTA design).
The ME217A tools helped to first identify the problem statement. The tools then helped
assess whom our customers are, and what function each component served in attempting
to meet the requirements of these customers. Then these requirements were transformed
into engineering metrics via the QFD Phase 1. The product definition was further refined
at the component level via QFD Phase 2, and finally the cost worth diagram helped to
assess which features represented the most opportunity for cost reduction. The fishbone
and FMEA tools helped to further refine the process and potential failure modes. Out of
all this came a detailed list of the parameters that needed to be studied and optimized in
the second half of the course (the product definition).
ME217B then picked up where 217A left off, lending tools like the Morphological
Analysis and Pugh chart to assess how different design alternatives might meet the
Product Definition defined in ME217A. Engineering analysis, and other tools like the
Taguchi method, and quality scorecarding, helped to actually define a final product
specification (recommendation), as follows:
Material:
 6061-T6 Aluminum
Geometry:
 Tube Thickness: 0.125”
 Nominal Tube ID: 5.1”
 Circularity (Deviation from Mean Diameter): TBD through Taguchi DOE
 ID Surface Finish TBD through Taguchi DOE
 Tube Straightness: 0.010” per 24”
 Vacuum Level Required: 10-7 Torr
 Tube Segment Length: 40 ft.
Tube Joint:
 High-Vacuum quick flange style with flange shape integrated into end-formed
tube.
 Viton o-ring used for seal
Cleaning Method:
 Flow chemicals through the tubing rather than dunking the tubing in baths.
Besides these engineering parameters, ME217 helped to examine the larger picture at
SLAC. It was difficult to get a firm list of actual parameters required to obtain a
successful design. The knowledge base seems to be spread among a number of physicists
and engineers who infrequently communicate with each other. Furthermore, the vacuum
requirements changed mid-course, from 10-9 Torr to 10-7 Torr. These are indications that
SLAC may benefit from a more formal design review process, in order to better transfer
information. This project has helped to clarify and document some of the requirements
that had been formerly unstated or assumed.
There are several follow-up items that are recommended to SLAC or future ME217
teams. These include:

The true vacuum limit requirement needs further definition. Days before the
end of the quarter, the team was notified by the liaison that the vacuum
requirements have increased again, this time to 10-8 Torr. If anything, this
serves as validation for the fact that a Taguchi DOE should be performed to
determine the true implications on the vacuum limit to the quality function. If
the vacuum limit truly is 10-8 Torr, then it is still possible that the quick joint
may be used, but a bake-out or a metal o-ring may need to be employed.

There may be unanticipated issues with the use of aluminum in the
Waveguide design. There is historical precedence of use of aluminum in
Waveguide, but the project team did not have time to investigate. A
competitive analysis could be performed. Furthermore, there may be better
alloys than 6061-T6 aluminum.

The implications of a 5.1” ID tube over the previously planned 4.75” ID tube
need further study to ensure that there is no packaging issue.

The detailed steps involved in the installation process were not covered in this
report. There may be opportunities for improvement in the installation plan.

The frequency and size of the pumps required for this system was beyond the
scope of the project, but there was some question as to whether the lowergrade quick flange seals necessitated more or larger pumps than the ultra high
vacuum Conflat flanges. For example, would the cost of the larger or more
frequent pumps outweigh the savings of the joints? This point needs further
study.
11. Acknowledgments
Jeff Rifkin, Project Liaison, SLAC
Vikash Goyal, Project Coach, Stanford Dept. of Mechanical Engineering
Professor Kos Ishii, Instructor, Stanford Dept. of Mechanical Engineering
Professor Mark Martin, Instructor, Stanford Dept. of Mechanical Engineering
Chris Adolphsen, Main Linac Systems Coordinator, SLAC
John Cornuelle, Deputy for Mechanical Systems, SLAC
Karen Fant, Mechanical Engineer, SLAC
Ali Farvid, Chemical Engineer, SLAC
Dick Locke, Sales Manager, Bay Extrusions, Inc.
Bobby McKee, Mechanical Engineer, SLAC
Chris Nantista, Engineering Physicist, SLAC
Mike Neubauer, Engineering Manager, SLAC
Carl Rago, Mechanical Engineer, SLAC
Sammy Tantawi, Engineering Physicist, SLAC
Dieter Walz, Engineering Physicist, SLAC
Perry Wilson, Professor Emeritus, SLAC
Dan Wright, Engineering Physicist, SLAC
12. References
1. SLAC Website (http://www.slac.stanford.edu)
2. U.S. Department of Energy Website (http://www.doe.gov/)
3. Groover, Mikell P.
Fundamentals of Modern Manufacturing. 1996
4. Shigley, Joseph and Mischke, Charles R.
Mechanical Engineering Design 1989
5. Ishii, K. and Martin, M.V. “Design for Manufacturability: Product Definition.” 2000
6. 1999 Tube & Pipe Mill Machine Buyers’ Guide. The Tube and Pipe Journal Vol. 10
No. 6 September 1999
7. “Compilation of outgassing data, Document no. ETM 82-001, Plasma Physics
Laboratory, Princeton, NJ, February 1982”
8. Young, J.R., “Outgassing characteristics of stainless steel and aluminum”, General
Electric Company, Analytical Measurements Business Section, NY, October 1968
9. Online Metals Website (http://www.onlinemetals.com)
10. MatWeb Website (http://www.matls.com)
11. MKS Instruments Website (http://www.mksinst.com)
12. Roth, A. Vacuum Technology, second revised edition, , 1982; page 133
13. Beynel, P et al, “Compilation of Radiation Damage Test Data, Part III: Materials used
around high-energy accelerators”
14. Aluminum Association Inc. Aluminum Standards and Data
15. T-DRILL Industries Inc. Website (http://www.t-drill.com)
16. Nast, Carol “Medical Device Executive Portfolio”, 1999
17. ElWakil, Sherif
Process and Design for Manufacturing
18. NLCTA Print # PS-290-291-02 E1 Rev D
12. Attachments
Attachment #1-
Interview list
64
Attachment #2-
Value Graph
65
Attachment #3-
Function Structure Map
66
Attachment #4-
Customer Value Chain Analysis (CVCA)
67
Attachment #5-
QFD Phase 1
68
Attachment #6-
QFD Phase 2
69
Attachment #7-
Cost-Worth Analysis
70
Attachment #8-
Cost-Worth Costs and Assumptions
71
Attachment #9-
Function Based FMEA
72
Attachment #10-
Pareto Chart (FMEA)
74
Attachment #11-
Product Definition Assessment Checklist
75
Attachment #12-
VOC Based FMEA
76
Attachment #13-
Fishbone Assembly Sequence
77
Attachment #14-
DFA Calculations
78
Attachment #15-
Serviceability Analysis Worksheet
79
Attachment #16-
Main LINAC Diagram
80
Attachment #17-
Morphological Analysis
81
Attachment #18-
Pugh Analysis
82
Attachment #19-
Concept Sketches
85
Attachment #20-
Manufacturing Concept
87
Attachment #21-
General Relative Radiation Effects: Elastomer
88
Attachment #22-
Implementation Steps
89
Attachment #23-
NLCTA Tube Specifications
90
Attachment #24-
Senatco Quote #1
91
Attachment #25-
Senatco Quote #2
92
Attachment #26-
Quick Flange Cost Calculations
93
Attachment #27-
Cost Estimation Graph
94
Attachment #28-
Plating Cost Calculations
95
Attachment #29-
Conflat Flange Specifications
96
SLACB- Waveguide
Internal Customer List & Function
Management
Physicists
Design
User
Name
Notes
Function
Chris Adolphsen
SLED system/waveguide, Budget, also design specs.
$$
Sammy Tantawi
Waveguide/Tube functional req.
Tdes, Tmtl, Tjoin, Tquant
Chris Nantista
Tube & joining detail design
Tdes, Tmtl, Tjoin, Tquant
Perry Wilson
theory
Tdes, Tmtl, Tjoin, Tquant
Marc Ross
Made SLC Work
Tinst, Tmnt
Keith Jobe
Made SLC Work
Tinst, Tmnt
Nan Phinney
NLC
Tinst, Tmnt
Klystron Mfg, In charge of shop
Tmfg, Tjoin, Tinst
Shun Takai
Tubing
Tdes, Tmtl, Tmfg, Tjoin, Tinst
Karen Fant
Tubing Install process
Tdes, Tmtl, Tmfg, Tjoin, Tinst
Mike Neubauer
management
Tdes, Tmtl, Tmfg, Tjoin, Tinst, $$
Karen Fant
Tubing Install process
Tdes, Tmtl, Tmfg, Tjoin, Tinst
Carl Rago
Ran Mfg Shop (SLC)
Tdes, Tmtl, Tmfg, Tjoin, Tinst
Bobby McKee
engineer for SLC damping rings
Tdes, Tmtl, Tmfg, Tjoin, Tinst
Rich Atkinson
Runs Mechanical Techs for mfg shop
Tmfg, Tjoin, Tinst, Tmnt
lead mechanical tech
Tmfg, Tjoinm Tinst, Tmnt
Rose Santana
In Vaccuum Dep't.
Tmfg, Tjoinm Tinst, Tmnt
Jeff Rifkin
All
All
Manufacturing Chris Pearson
Design
Engineers
Maintenance
Technicians
Install/Maintain Jaff Garcia
Jack-of-All Trades All
Functions:
Tquant = Number of tubes
Tdes = Tube Design
Tmtl = Tube Material
Tjoin = Tube Join
Tmfg = Tube Manufacturing
Tinst = Tube Installation Process
Tmnt = Tube Maintenance
$$ = Budget
Waveguide Value Graph
Run Computer
Model
Learn about the
components of atoms
Have Fun?
Run Physics Experiments
WHY
Manufacture
Electronics
components
Accelerate Particles
Guide Waves
Hold Vacuum
Transfer Energy
Waveguide
WHAT
Efficient
Surface
HOW Roughness/
Conductivity
Joints
Safe
Reliable
Wall Thickness
Vacuum
Capacity
Tubing
Serviceable
Cleanliness
(particulate levels)
Pumps
Attachment #2-Value Graph Pg. 65
Easy to
Install
Length
Hardware
Weight
Function-Structure Map
Structure
Function
Material
Con ductivity
Tub es
Geometry
Cle an of Gas
Transfer
Power
Provide
Vac uum
Environme nt
Cle an of Solid
Joints
No Leaks
Straigh t
Provide
Geometry
Con centric
Strong
Smooth
Attachment #3-Function Structure Map Pg. 66
Sup por t
Stru cture
Waveguide
Assembly
Customer Value Chain Analysis
Copper Raw
Material Supplier
10101
Supplier of
Copper Tubing
$!
$!
Supplier of
Conflat Flanges
10101
Physicists and
Other Users
10101
10101
$!
SLAC NLC
Waveguide Team
10101
$!
Taxpayers
NLC Project
Team
10101
10101
10101
10101
$!
Supplier of
Cleaning Equipment
-Physicists
-Engineers
-Technicians
$ ! 10101
$!
10101
$!
Department of
Energy
10101
$!
$!
10101
Supplier of
Other
Installation
Hardware
10101
Construction
Contractors
Congress
Legend
Hardware/Mat’l
Service
Power
10101
Information
$
Money
!
Complaints
Attachment #4-Customer Value Chain Analysis Pg. 67
PHASE I QFD
NLC Waveguide
Tube and Joint Roundness
Tube and Joint Concentricity
Tube Straightness
Tube Interior Surface Finish
Tube Conductivity
Wall Thickness
Joint Vacuum Limit
Tubing Material Outgassing
Tube Weight
Mean Time to Remove Joint
Mean Time to Remove Tube
Tube Length
Mean Time Assemble Joint
Exterior Surface Oxidation
+
+
+
+
++
+
+
-
+
++
+
+
9
3
Exterior Surface Oxidation
Mean Time Assemble Joint
Tube Length
Mean Time to Remove Joint
Mean Time to Remove Tube
1
9
9
3
< 25% after 1 yr
18
< 10 minutes
63
< 2 hr.
1%
Attachment #5-QFD Phase I Pg. 68
< 2 hr.
5%
9
102 20'<length<40'
3
3
3
9
3
8%
1
9
36
1
1
9
45
3
9
3
9
3%
117 0.125" +/- .010"
9%
1
4%
81
6%
>ASTM F68-93, 1
108 <32 microinches
9%
<.010" per 24"
81
6%
<0.005"
90
7%
< 0.01"
3
117 <300 lbs
3
3
3
Tube Weight
3
9
9
9%
3
1
9
1
Tubing Material Outgassing
9
Joint Vacuum Limit
Tube Conductivity
9
117 >ASTM F68-93, 1
Tube Interior Surface Finish
9
9%
Tube Straightness
9
16% 198 < 10^-9 Torr
Tube and Joint Concentricity
9
Wall Thickness
Tube and Joint Roundness
dwn dwn dwn dwn up nom dwn dwn dwn dwn dwn nom dwn dwn
Engineering Metrics
Technical Targets
Raw score
Relative
Weight
+
81
9
9
9
9
3
3
1
++
6%
Customer Weights
Preferred
Customer Requirements
Able to Transfer Power
Reliability
Able to hold Vacuum
Safety
Serviceability
Installability
Cosmetics
++
++
+
-
PHASE II QFD
NLC Waveguide
Bolts (20/flange)
Nuts (20/flang)
3
1
1
3
1
9
3
3
3
3
3
1
9
9
3
9
1
9
9
3
9
1
13% 1.8
13% 1.8
Conflat Flange- Stainles Steel
3
Tube
Conflat Flange- Cu Ring
Relative Weight
9
13% 1.8
Raw score
3
17% 2.4
6%
7%
6%
9%
6%
9%
16%
9%
9%
4%
3%
8%
5%
1%
44% 6.0
Engineering Metrics
Tube and Joint Roundness
Tube and Joint Concentricity
Tube Straightness
Tube Interior Surface Finish
Tube Conductivity
Wall Thickness
Joint Vacuum Limit
Tubing Material Diffusion Rate
Tube Weight
Mean Time to Remove Joint
Mean Time to Remove Tube
Tube Length
Mean Time Assemble Joint
Exterior Surface Oxidation
Phase I Relative Weights
Part Characteristics
9
3
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
Attachment #6-QFD Phase II Pg. 69
3
9
3
QFD Cost - Worth Diagram
(based on 5 meter tube sections)
80%
70%
Tube
Relative Cost
60%
50%
40%
30%
Flange - Stainless Steel
20%
10%
Bolts
Flange - Copper
0%
0%
10%
Nuts
20%
30%
Relative Worth
Attachment #7-Cost Worth Analysis Pg. 70
40%
50%
Estimated Component Costs with 5 meter tube sections
Labor at
Labor
Base
Scrap
$50/hr and Cost/
Minutes
Processing Meter
Component Cost Discount Rate
Tube
$50
10%
1
N/A
$50
Flange - Steel $220
30%
1
20
$16.67
Cu Ring
$4.80
30%
1.2
0.1
$0.08
Nuts & Bolts
$22
30%
1.2
7.5
$6.25
Assumptions
Base cost is from $2/lb for
raw coper and 25lb/meter.
Tube wall thickness is .125".
$95.00
Labor is an assumption to
cover manufacturing and
installation
Base Cost from catalog.
$34.13
Labor time to braze and weld
Base Cost from catalog.
$0.82
Labor time to install.
$22 for set of Nuts and Bolts.
$2.47 Final costs is for just 1 set of
Nuts or Bolts
Attachment #8-Cost Worth Assumptions Pg. 71
Conductive
Local Effects
End Effects on
Product, User,
Other Systems
Detection Method/
Current Controls
Detection
Potential Failure Potential Causes
Modes
of Failure
FMEA Number:
Page:
Date:
Severity
Function or
Requirement
System Name: NLC Waveguide
Major Function: Transport Microwave Power
Prepared By: SLAC-B Team
Occurrence
Failure Modes &
Effects Analysis
R
P
N
Responsibility and
Actions Recommended
Target Completion
to Reduce RPN
Date
3 Power Loss
Increased Power
Requirements
Monitoring System
3 Outputs
1
9
1 Power Loss
Increased Power
Requirements
Monitor System
3 Outputs
1
3
System
Shutdown
3 Pressure Gauges
1
9
Delay in start-up
3 Pressure Gauges
1
27
Project Failure
9 Pressure Gauges
1
9
Delay in start-up
3 Pressure Gauges
1
9
Di-electric
3 break down
System damage
Monitoring System
9 Outputs
1
27
Di-electric
9 break down
System damage
Monitoring System
9 Outputs
1
81
Mfg. Process
1 Power Loss
Increased Power
Requirements
Supplier quality
3 control
3
9
Joining
3 Power Loss
Increased Power
Requirements
3 Visual Inspection
9
81
Low Conductivity Impure Material
Poor Material
Selection
Provide
Vacuum
Clean of Gases
Oxides Present
System Opens to
Air
Slow Installation
Process
Bad Material
Selection
Clean of Solid
Dust / Particles
Present
Virtual Leak
Bad Cleaning or
Installation
Process
Dirty
Manufacturing
Process
Pressure too
3 high
Extended time
to form
9 vacuum
Vacuum won't
1 form
Extended time
to form
3 vacuum
Geometry
Straight
Not Straight
Attachment #9-Function Based FMEA Pg. 72
1
7
2/27/00
Concentric
Strong
Not Concentric
Not Strong
Installation
3 Power Loss
Increased Power
Requirements
Laser levels during
3 installation
1
9
Transit
3 Power Loss
Increased Power
Requirements
Checked during
3 installation
1
9
Support Structure
1 Power Loss
Increased Power
Requirements
Monitor System
3 Outputs
3
9
Processing
1 Power Loss
Increased Power
Requirements
Supplier Quality
3 Control
3
9
Joining
3 Power Loss
Increased Power
Requirements
Monitor System
3 Outputs
9
81
Transportation
Increased Power
Requirements
Monitor System
3 Outputs
9
27
Increased Power
Requirements
3 none
9
27
Increased Power
Requirements
3 none
9
27
Weak Joints
1 Power Loss
Increased
chance of
local
1 deformation
Increased
chance of
local
1 deformation
Increased
chance of
local
1 deformation
Increased Power
Requirements
3 none
9
27
Processing
3 Power Loss
Increased Power
Requirements
Supplier Quality
3 Control
3
27
Joints
3 Power Loss
Increased Power
Requirements
Monitor System
3 Outputs
9
81
Transportation
1 Power Loss
Increased Power
Requirements
Monitor System
3 Outputs
9
27
Material Choice
Thickness of Pipe
Smooth I.D.
Not Smooth
Attachment #9-Function Based FMEA Pg. 73
M
an
uf
Tr
an
si
Pr
t
Ex
oc
pe
es
ns
si
iv
ng
e
M
at
er
ia
Ex
ls
te
rio
M
rD
es
irt
sy
Lo
ok
in
g
ac
tu
rin
g
Pr
Co
oc
n
Sl
c
es
ow
en
s
tri
In
c
st
J
al
oi
la
ni
tio
ng
n
Pr
oc
Tr
es
an
s
sp
Th
or
ta
ic
kn
tio
es
n
s
of
Pi
pe
Pr
oc
Ex
es
pe
si
ng
n
Di
si
ve
ff
ic
Jo
ul
tt
in
o
ts
Tr
an
Pe
sp
rm
or
an
t
en
tJ
Im
oi
nt
pu
Ba
s
r
d
e
M
M
at
at
er
er
ia
ia
lS
l
el
ec
tio
M
fg
n
.P
ro
ce
ss
Di
rty
Cause
90
60
80%
50
60%
40
30
40%
20
10
20%
0
0%
RPN
Attachment #10-Pareto Chart Pg. 74
Cummulative %
1.5 Pareto Chart
120%
80
100%
70
RPN
Cum Tot.
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Summary
Dependencies
Resources
Management Leadership
Business & Financial Model
Core Competencies
Market Channels
Risk Management
Project Priorities
Product Positioning
Competitive Analysis
Compliances
Localization
Understaning Need
Strategic Alignment
Product Definition Assessment Checklist
January 25, 2000
High
Min
Attachment #11-Product Definition Assessment Checklist Pg. 75
Cost-Effective
Mfg.
Serviceable
Expensive Mfg.
Difficult to
Service
3
Expensive Joints
9
Expensive
Materials
3
Too Much Material
9
Difficult to
Transport
9
Complex Joints
9
Permanent Joints
3 Cut Tube
Difficult
9 Access
Not Enough Joints
Unattractive
Increased
Component
Cost
Increased
Component
Cost
Increased
Component
Cost
Increased
Component
Cost
Increased
Component
Cost
Increased
Labor Costs
Too Many Joints
Bulky Joints
Cosmetics
Local Effects
Exterior Dirt
Exterior Oxidation
Messy Looking
End Effects on
Product, User,
Other Systems
Detection Method/
Current Controls
Detection
Potential Failure Potential Causes
Modes
of Failure
FMEA Number:
Page:
Date:
Severity
Function or
Requirement
System Name: NLC Waveguide
Major Function: Transport Microwave Power
Prepared By: SLAC-B Team
Occurrence
Failure Modes &
Effects Analysis
R
P
N
Responsibility and
Actions Recommended
Target Completion
to Reduce RPN
Date
Increased
System Cost
3 Cost Estimates
1
9
Increased
System Cost
3 Cost Estimates
1
27
Increased
System Cost
3 Cost Estimates
1
9
Increased
System Cost
3 Cost Estimates
1
27
3 Cost Estimates
1
27
3 Cost Estimates
1
27
Downtime to
Replace Section
9 Cost Estimates
1
27
Labor Time
3 Cost Estimates
1
27
3 Cost Estimates
1
9
1 Cost Estimates
1
9
1 Cost Estimates
1
9
1 Cost Estimates
1
9
Increased
System Cost
Increased
System Cost
Open Larger Increased DownSection to Air time During
3 During Service Service
Causes
Bad
Unneeded
9 Appearance
Cleaning
Causes
Bad
Unneeded
9 Appearance
Cleaning
Causes
Bad
Unneeded
9 Appearance
Cleaning
Attachment #12-VOC Based FMEA Pg. 76
1
9
2/27/00
Attachment #13-Fishbone Assembly Sequence Pg. 77
0
Attachment #14-DFA Calculations Pg. 78
Attachment #15-Serviceability Analysis Worksheet Pg. 79
Attachment #16-Main LINAC Diagram Pg. 80
Means
Feature
Material
ElectricalStandard-grade
grade Copper
Copper
Aluminum
Copper-coated Copper-coated
Aluminum
Steel
Copper-coated
Plastic
Copper-coated
Glass
Injection
Molded
Sputtered
Chemical Vapor
Deposition
Orbital Weld
Standard HV
Flange
Process
Roll-formed with
Post Draw
Extruded
Blow Molded
Joint
Conflat UHV
Flange
Swage
Braze
E-beam Weld
4.6 Meters 15 Feet
6.1 Meters 20 Feet
12.2 Meters 40 Feet
25 Meters
Length
1. Elect-grade Cu, Extruded, Conflat, 6.1 meters
2. Aluminum, Extruded, E-Beam Weld, 6.1 meters
3. Std-grade Cu, Roll Formed, Swaged, 12.2 meters
4. Cu-coated Steel, Roll Formed, Brazed, 12.2 meters
Attachment #17-Morphological Analysis Pg. 81
Concepts
Criteria
Tubing Manufacturing
Process Capability
Total +
Total Total S
Net
+
+
-
-
S
-
-
S
-
-
-
+
+
+
S
-
S
2
3
1
-1
2
4
0
-2
2
1
3
+1
M
Time to Install
+
U
Reliability of Waveguide
4
T
Power Loss
3
A
Serviceability
2
D
Cost
1
1. Elect-grade Cu, Extruded, Conflat, 6.1 meters
2. Aluminum, Extruded, E-Beam Weld, 6.1 meters
3. Std-grade Cu, Roll Formed, Swaged, 12.2 meters
4. Cu-coated Steel, Roll Formed, Brazed, 12.2 meters
Attachment #18-Pugh Analysis Pg. 82
Concepts
Criteria
1
Cost
-
4
S
S
S
+
+
+
+
S
S
S
S
-
S
3
2
1
+1
2
1
3
+1
2
0
4
+2
D
3
+
Serviceability
2
A
+
Power Loss
T
+
Time to Install
-
M
Tubing Manufacturing
Process Capability
Total +
Total Total S
Net
U
Reliability of Waveguide
1. Elect-grade Cu, Extruded, Conflat, 6.1 meters
2. Aluminum, Extruded, E-Beam Weld, 6.1 meters
3. Std-grade Cu, Roll Formed, Swaged, 12.2 meters
4. Cu-coated Steel, Roll Formed, Brazed, 12.2 meters
Attachment #18-Pugh Analysis Pg. 83
Concepts
Criteria
1
2
Cost
-
S
Serviceability
+
S
Power Loss
+
-
Reliability of Waveguide
+
+
Time to Install
-
S
+
+
+
4
2
0
+2
2
1
3
+1
3
0
3
+3
D
A
T
U
M
Tubing Manufacturing
Process Capability
Total +
Total Total S
Net
3
1. Elect-grade Cu, Extruded, Conflat, 6.1 meters
2. Aluminum, Extruded, E-Beam Weld, 6.1 meters
3. Std-grade Cu, Roll Formed, Swaged, 12.2 meters
4. Cu-coated Steel, Roll Formed, Brazed, 12.2 meters
Attachment #18-Pugh Analysis Pg. 84
4
S
+
+
S
S
SS Conflat Flange
E-beam weld bead
‘knife-edge’
Bolt & nut
Copper Gasket
Cusil Weld
Concept 1: Extruded
Electrical-Grade Copper with
Conflat Flange
Concept 2: Extruded
Aluminum with electron-beam
Weld
= vacuum area
Attachment #19-Concept Sketches Pg. 85
Cavity prevents ‘virtual leak’
Hole to feed Brazing material
Steel Sleeve Steel Tube
Space for sliding Sleeve for service
Cusil weld
Thin Copper Plating
Concept 3: Roll-Formed
Standard-Grade Copper with
Swaged Joint
Provides Location
Concept 4: Roll-Formed Steel
with Copper Coated ID,
Brazed Joint
= vacuum area
Attachment #19-Concept Sketches Pg. 86
Steel Sheet
Roll Form
Post Draw Sputter Copper on ID
& machine ends
12.2 meters
Ship segments
Join Segments
24.4 meters
Add Conflats to ends, send down tunnel in fixture, join to vacuum pumps.
Attachment #20-Manufacturing Concept Pg. 87
Attachment #21-General Relative Radiation Effects: Elastomer Pg. 88
Aluminum
Plug
Drill hole
Extrude
Post-Draw
Form & Machine
Ends
12.2 meters
Ship segments
Clean Segments
12.2 meters
Fill w/Nitrogen & plug ends,
Transport to tunnel
Join segments in tunnel,
Perform QA, Bake-Out
Attachment #22-Implementation Steps Pg. 89
Attachment #23-NLCTA Tube Specifications Pg. 90
Dear Mr. Greg
Thank you for your interest in our Company. We appreciate your enquiry for Copper Tube
ID: 4.75"
Circularity: 0.005
Straightness: 0.010 per 24 length
Surface Finish: 32 Micron RMS.
Wall Thickness: 0.125 +/- 0.010
Length of segments: 40 ft preferred.
MATERIAL:
Oxygen-free, Electronic (OFE) Copper Alloy UNS Number C10100
Chemical and metallographic Properties to conform to ASTM F68-93 Metallographic Class 1.
Circular OFE copper Per PS-290-291-02.
The specification and size desired by you is manageable, we are not very sure about the
length, we would be in a position to provide you length up to 20 feet's .
Kindly acknowledge the price and conditions.
Price: 5000.00 U.S. $ Per MTon
Payment : Irrevocable Letter of Credit in our favor
Delivery Period : 20 Tons in 3 weeks
Test Certificate: Would be provided.
Kindly feel free to contact for any further queries.
Thanking you, Best Regards
r. Fayzan Khan
Senatco Copper
Attachment #24-Senatco Quote: Round 1 Pg. 91
At 10:23 AM 5/15/00 +0530, you wrote:
Dear Mr. Greg.
We are in receipt of your mail . I learnt from you mail that earlier you have sent enquiry
mails, I would like to inform you that unfortunately those mails were not received by me.
Kindly acknowledge the details required by you.
1. The price would not change if the specification changes from C10100 copper to
C10200 high-conductivity copper
2. Tubes are Extruded before they are drawn.
3. Lately we have installed a heavy draw bench through which it would be possible for us
to produce 40 feet Tubes. Provided the 40 feet container for shipment is able to
accommodate 40 feet tubes.
4.Since its been more than 4 weeks for our quotation it has accordingly expired.
if you need us to provide our fresh quotation. Kindly inform us accordingly.
Thanking you, Regards
Mr. Fayzan Khan
Attachment #25-Senatco Quote: Round 2 Pg. 92
Flange
Center/O-ring
Clamp
Tube OD (inches)
Short Weld Stub
Long Weld Stub
Steel/Buna-N
Steel/Viton
Steel/Silicon
Al/Buna-N
Al/Viton
Al Wing
0.25
0.5
$8.80
$13.70
$4.90
$5.60
$6.00
$2.70
$5.10
$5.30
6.25
2.5
$25.56
$35.00
$14.11
$17.92
$17.91
$7.40
$13.74
$18.93
2.25
1
1.5
1
$13.40
$10.30
$17.90
$15.80
$8.60
$5.90
$10.00
$6.60
$10.80
$7.60
$4.60
$3.60
$8.00
$6.00
$8.40
$7.10
20.25
16
Squared Growth
4.5
4
3
$66.08
$33.52 $53.78
$86.98
$45.21 $71.20
$35.82
$18.38 $29.23
$47.37
$23.70 $38.43
$45.78
$23.39 $37.32
$18.13
$9.51 $14.87
$34.28
$17.78 $28.04
$51.73
$25.37 $41.77
0.5625
0.75
$8.80
$13.70
$4.90
$5.60
$6.00
$2.80
$5.20
$5.30
9
4
2
$19.40
$27.80
$10.30
$13.00
$13.00
$5.50
$10.40
$14.20
25
5
$79.82
$104.62
$43.18
$57.36
$55.24
$21.78
$41.24
$62.86
Average of Linear and Square Growth
5
4.5
4
3
2.5
$23.69 $29.46 $43.17 $51.12 $59.78
$32.51 $39.88 $57.41 $67.56 $78.65
$13.19 $16.31 $23.71 $27.99 $32.67
$16.61 $20.83 $30.84 $36.64 $42.96
$16.74 $20.75 $30.26 $35.77 $41.77
$8.50 $12.18 $14.30 $16.62
$6.95
$12.83 $15.77 $22.74 $26.78 $31.19
$17.39 $22.06 $33.15 $39.58 $46.59
Linear Growth Approximation
4.5
4
3
2.5
$21.82 $25.40 $32.57 $36.16
$30.01 $34.54 $43.61 $48.14
$12.26 $14.24 $18.19 $20.17
$15.31 $17.96 $23.26 $25.90
$15.56 $18.11 $23.21 $25.75
$9.48 $10.47
$7.50
$6.51
$11.92 $13.76 $17.45 $19.29
$15.86 $18.75 $24.53 $27.42
5
$39.74
$52.67
$22.15
$28.55
$28.30
$11.46
$21.13
$30.31
Quick Flange Components: 2-Long Weld Stubs, 1-Steel/Viton Center/O-ring, 1-Al Wing
Expected Mat'l Cost (40% end forming & 30% volume discount)
Quick Flange Cost with 30seconds labor
Conflat Material Cost (from Cost-Worth)
Total Conflat Cost (from Cost-Worth)
# of Joints w/ 40' (Al), 20’ (Cu)
sections & pumps every 160' Total Flange Costs
$2,323,162
18,045
$128.74
$2,330,681
18,045
$129.16
(Ref. Cost-Worth)
$3,185,123
38,720
$176.51
(Ref. Cost-Worth)
$3,298,806
38,720
$182.81
Attachment #26-Quick Flange Cost Calculations Pg. 93
Approximate Costs of Flange Components
(using an Average of Linear and Squared Cost-Growth)
$80.00
$70.00
Short Weld Stub
Long Weld Stub
$60.00
Steel/Buna-N
Steel/Viton
Cost
$50.00
Steel/Silicon
Al/Buna-N
$40.00
Al/Viton
Al Wing
$30.00
$20.00
$10.00
$0.00
0
1
2
3
4
Tube OD
Attachment #27-Cost Estimation Graph Pg. 94
5
Costs
Copper w/ Conflat (2 cleanings)
Input
8,784,800
2*RM +2*labor+hardware
Copper w/ Quick (1 cleanings)
Input
6,840,060
RM +labor+hardware
Al (1 cleaning, 3%RM reduction)
Input
6,839,098
RM +labor+hardware
Steel (one cleaning, one plating)
Input
17,213,011
RMs+labors+Hardwares
Inputs
Tube Diameter
Tube Length
DLDS Length
required volume
labor cost
4.75inch
20foot
176000meter
5.13766E-05gal/in^2
100$/hour
Cost Calcs
cost of Raw Material for plating
cost of RM for cleaning
cost of labor for cleaning
cost of labor for plating
cost of labor, plating clean tubes
plating hardware
cleaning hardware
Quantity Calcs
Tube volume
Number of tubes
total gallons
surface area/tube
total surface
run volume
80,151$
32,060$
5,808,000$
11,616,000$
9,292,800$
1,000,000$
1,000,000$
18.4
29,040.0
534,653.0
3,581.4
104,004,309.8
5,343.4
Minor Inputs
labor to plate one tube
labor to clean one tube
labor to plate clean tube
number liquids to plate
number liquids to clean
cost/gallon
.5 for pump/fix,.5rinse, 1 for tanks
gal
volume/tube
tubes
total number of tubes
gal
total volume of tube system
in^2/tube surface area of one tube
in^2
surface area of tube system
gal
volume of a single liquid for tube system
4hour
2hour
3.2hour
5liquids
2liquids
3$
1$ liquid, 2$ disposal
Attachment #28-Plating Cost Calculations Pg. 95
Attachment #29-Conflat Flange Specifications Pg. 96