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