SLAC - B(Waveguide Assembly)

Final Project Report

Eric Coblin

Clay Fenstermaker

Greg McCandless

Eric Schmidt

Coach: Vikash Goyal Liaison: Jeff Rifkin

Agenda

• 217A-Product Definition

• 217B-Product Specification

• Concept Development

• Design Recommendations

• Scorecard

• Implementation Process

• Competitive Analysis

• Questions

217A-Product Definition

–Understand the project•CVCA•Value Graph•Function-Structure Mapping•Product Definition Assessment Checklist

–Quantify the Understanding•QFD•Cost-Worth•Design for Assembly•Design for Variety•Design for Environment

•FMEA

SLAC NLCWaveguide Team

-Physicists-Engineers

-TechniciansNLC ProjectTeam

Department ofEnergy

Congress

Taxpayers

Physicists andOther Users

Supplier ofCopper Tubing

Copper RawMaterial Supplier

Supplier ofConflat Flanges

ConstructionContractors

Supplier ofOther

Installat ionHardware

Supplier ofCleaning Equipment

$ !

$ !

$ !

$ !

$ !

$ !

$ !

$ !

$ !

$ !10101

1010110101

10101

10101

101011010110101

10101

$

!

Hardware/Mat’l

Service

Power

Information

Money

Complaints

Legend

Customer Value Chain Analysis

10101

10101

10101

10101

10101

10101

Waveguide

Accelerate Particles

Guide Waves Hold Vacuum

Run Physics Experiments

Learn about the components of atoms

Transfer Energy

Manufacture Electronics

components

Have Fun?

Run ComputerModel

Efficient ReliableSafe ServiceableEasy to Install

Wall ThicknessVacuumCapacity

Cleanliness(particulate levels) Length Weight

TubingJoints HardwarePumps

SurfaceRoughness/

Conductivity

WHAT

HOW

WHY

Waveguide Value Graph

Function-Structure Map

Function Structure

TransferPower

ProvideGeometry

ProvideVacuum

Environment

Conductivity

Clean of Gas

No Leaks

Clean of Solid

Straight

Concentric

Strong

Smooth

WaveguideAssembly

SupportStructure

Joints

TubesMaterial

Geometry

PHASE I QFDNLC Waveguide

Tube and Joint RoundnessTube and Joint ConcentricityTube StraightnessTube Interior Surface Finish + Tube ConductivityWall 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

Preferred dwn dwn dwn dwn up nom dwn dwn dwn dwn dwn nom dwn dwn

Engineering Metrics

Customer Requirements Cus

tom

er W

eigh

ts

Tub

e an

d Jo

int R

ound

ness

Tub

e an

d Jo

int C

once

ntri

city

Tub

e St

raig

htne

ss

Tub

e In

teri

or S

urfa

ce F

inis

h

Tub

e C

ondu

ctiv

ity

Wal

l Thi

ckne

ss

Join

t Vac

uum

Lim

it

Tub

ing

Mat

eria

l Out

gass

ing

Tub

e W

eigh

t

Mea

n T

ime

to R

emov

e Jo

int

Mea

n T

ime

to R

emov

e T

ube

Tub

e L

engt

h

Mea

n T

ime

Ass

embl

e Jo

int

Ext

erio

r Su

rfac

e O

xida

tion

Able to Transfer Power 9 9 9 9 9 9 1 3 3 1Reliability 9 9 9Able to hold Vacuum 9 3 1 9 9 1 3 1Safety 9 9 1 1 3Serviceability 3 3 3 3 9 9 3 9 3Installability 3 3 3 3 9 9 9Cosmetics 1 3 9

Technical Targets

< 0.

01"

<0.0

05"

<.01

0" p

er 2

4"

<32

mic

roin

ches

>AST

M F

68-9

3, 1

0.12

5" +

/- .0

10"

< 10

^-9

Torr

>AST

M F

68-9

3, 1

<300

lbs

< 2

hr.

< 2

hr.

20'<

leng

th<4

0'

< 10

min

utes

< 25

% a

fter

1 y

r

Raw score 81 90 81 108

81 117

198

117

117

45 36 102

63 18

Relative Weight 6% 7% 6% 9% 6% 9% 16

%

9% 9% 4% 3% 8% 5% 1%

PHASE II QFD NLC WaveguidePart Characteristics

Engineering Metrics Ph

ase

I R

elat

ive

Wei

ghts

Tub

e

Con

flat

Fla

nge-

Sta

inle

s S

teel

Con

flat

Fla

nge-

Cu

Rin

g

Bol

ts (

20/f

lang

e)

Nut

s (2

0/fl

ang)

Tube and Joint Roundness 6% 9 3Tube and Joint Concentricity 7% 3 9Tube Straightness 6% 9 3Tube Interior Surface Finish 9% 9Tube Conductivity 6% 9Wall Thickness 9% 9Joint Vacuum Limit 16% 3 9 3 3Tubing Material Diffusion Rate 9% 9Tube Weight 9% 9 3Mean Time to Remove Joint 4% 3 1 9 9Mean Time to Remove Tube 3% 3 1 9 9Tube Length 8% 9 3 3 3 3Mean Time Assemble Joint 5% 3 1 9 9Exterior Surface Oxidation 1% 9 1 1 1

Raw score 6.0

2.4

1.8

1.8

1.8

Relative Weight 44%

17%

13%

13%

13%

QFD Cost - Worth Diagram(based on 5 meter tube sections)

Flange - Stainless Steel

Nuts

Tube

Flange - CopperBolts

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Relative Worth

Re

lati

ve

Co

st

Fish Bone Diagram

Finished Assembly

Dry @ 150 degrees C

Assemble 20 nuts

High Temperature, High Purity Water Rinse

Cyanide Dip & Water Rinse

50% Hydrochloric Acid & Water Rinse

Bright Dip & Water Rinse

Alcohol Dip & Water Rinse

Emulsion & Water Rinse

Braze Conflat Flange (x2)

Cusil Weld Conflat Flange (x2)

Tube Section ~(20-40 ft)

F

Legend

Screw Down/Rotate

Weld

Braze

Insert Down

Insert Side

FixtureFF

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

Blow with Nitrogen

Transport to Site

Insert Copper Ring

Insert bolts (x20)

Fish Bone Diagram

Finished Assembly

Dry @ 150 degrees C

Assemble 20 nuts

High Temperature, High Purity Water Rinse

Cyanide Dip & Water Rinse

50% Hydrochloric Acid & Water Rinse

Bright Dip & Water Rinse

Alcohol Dip & Water Rinse

Emulsion & Water Rinse

Braze Conflat Flange (x2)

Cusil Weld Conflat Flange (x2)

Tube Section ~(20-40 ft)

F

Legend

Screw Down/Rotate

Weld

Braze

Insert Down

Insert Side

FixtureFF

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

Blow with Nitrogen

Transport to Site

Insert Copper Ring

Insert bolts (x20)

Failure Modes & System Name: NLC Waveguide FMEA Number: 1

Effects Analysis Major Function: Transport Microwave Power Page: 7

Prepared By: SLAC-B Team Date: 2/27/00

Function or Requirement

Potential Failure Modes

Potential Causes of Failure

Occ

urre

nce

Local EffectsEnd Effects on Product, User, Other Systems S

ever

ity Detection Method/ Current Controls

Det

ectio

n

RPN

Actions Recommended to Reduce RPN

Responsibility and Target Completion

Date

Conductive Low Conductivity Impure Material 3 Power LossIncreased Power Requirements 3

Monitoring System Outputs 1 9

Poor Material Selection 1 Power Loss

Increased Power Requirements 3

Monitor System Outputs 1 3

Provide Vacuum

Clean of Gases Oxides PresentSystem Opens to Air 3

Pressure too high

System Shutdown 3 Pressure Gauges 1 9

Slow Installation Process 9

Extended time to form vacuum Delay in start-up 3 Pressure Gauges 1 27

Bad Material Selection 1

Vacuum won't form Project Failure 9 Pressure Gauges 1 9

Virtual Leak 3

Extended time to form vacuum Delay in start-up 3 Pressure Gauges 1 9

Clean of SolidDust / Particles Present

Bad Cleaning or Installation Process 3

Di-electric break down System damage 9

Monitoring System Outputs 1 27

Dirty Manufacturing Process 9

Di-electric break down System damage 9

Monitoring System Outputs 1 81

Geometry

Straight Not Straight Mfg. Process 1 Power LossIncreased Power Requirements 3

Supplier quality control 3 9

Joining 3 Power LossIncreased Power Requirements 3 Visual Inspection 9 81

Installation 3 Power LossIncreased Power Requirements 3

Laser levels during installation 1 9

Transit 3 Power LossIncreased Power Requirements 3

Checked during installation 1 9

Support Structure 1 Power LossIncreased Power Requirements 3

Monitor System Outputs 3 9

Concentric Not Concentric Processing 1 Power LossIncreased Power Requirements 3

Supplier Quality Control 3 9

Joining 3 Power LossIncreased Power Requirements 3

Monitor System Outputs 9 81

Transportation 1 Power LossIncreased Power Requirements 3

Monitor System Outputs 9 27

Strong Not Strong Material Choice 1

Increased chance of local deformation

Increased Power Requirements 3 none 9 27

Thickness of Pipe 1

Increased chance of local deformation

Increased Power Requirements 3 none 9 27

Weak Joints 1

Increased chance of local deformation

Increased Power Requirements 3 none 9 27

Smooth I.D. Not Smooth Processing 3 Power LossIncreased Power Requirements 3

Supplier Quality Control 3 27

Joints 3 Power LossIncreased Power Requirements 3

Monitor System Outputs 9 81

Transportation 1 Power LossIncreased Power Requirements 3

Monitor System Outputs 9 27

1.5 Pareto Chart

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Dirty

Manuf

actu

ring

Proc

ess

Conce

ntric

Joini

ng

Slow In

stall

ation

Pro

cess

Tran

spor

tatio

n

Thick

ness

of P

ipe

Proc

essin

g

Expe

nsive

Joint

s

Difficu

lt to

Tran

spor

t

Perm

anen

t Join

ts

Impu

re M

ater

ial

Bad M

ater

ial S

elect

ion

Mfg. P

roce

ss

Tran

sit

Proc

essin

g

Expe

nsive

Mat

erial

s

Exte

rior D

irt

Messy

Loo

king

RPN

Ca

us

e

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

Cu

mm

ula

tiv

e %

RPN

Cum Tot.

217B-Product Specification

–Generate Concepts•Morphological Analysis•Brainstorm•Pugh Analysis

–Evaluate Options•Design of Experiments•Poka Yoke-Mistake proofing•Motorola Six Sigma•Design for Ergonomics•Scorecarding•Cost Modeling (competitive analysis)

Morphological Analysis

Design Recommendations

• Tube Material– Alternatives– Selection

• Tube Geometry/Parameters

• Joint Design

• Tube Segment Length

• Cleaning

Tube Material Alternatives

• Copper– Low Electrical Resistivity (1.7 x10-6Ohm-cm)– Good Outgassing Properties (1 x 10-13 Torr-l/s/cm2)– Can be Cusil-welded to Stainless Steel– Traditional Choice (Class 1 Used for NLCTA)

• Class 1 used; could consider Class 2 because no oven braze)

– Dense & Expensive

• Composite Coated Steel– Steel is cheap (but not stainless)– Coating is expensive & not 100% coverage. Chemical Tank

Pump

FLOW

Copper Wire Inside (+) Steel Tube (-)

Sealed ends

Chemical Tank

Pump

FLOW

Copper Wire Inside (+) Steel Tube (-)

Sealed ends

Tube Material Selected• 6061-T6 Aluminum

– Good Electrical Conductivity (~51% less than Cu)• Can be made up for with larger diameter

– Comparable Outgassing to Cu. (1 x 10-13 Torr-l/s/cm2)– Slightly more strength, less than 1/3 density of Cu

• Aids in Handling

– Approximately ½ cost per lb. than Cu

– Cannot be easily joined to Stainless Steel Flanges, but Stainless Steel Flanges no longer required due to less stringent vacuum requirement. (10-7 Torr)

Tube Geometry/Parameters• Nominal Thickness: 0.125”

– Wrench Drop Test– Pressure Deformation (.0002”)– Electrical Conductivity– Stiffness

• Nominal ID: 5.1” (vs. 4.75” Cu)– Matches power loss of baseline Cu tube.– Improves fluidic conductivity, C

( D3), which offsets increased outgassing surface area, B ( D2), so reduces spacing required between pumps.

Vacuum Pump

P0 PL P0 PL P0

L L L L

LP LP

Vacuum Pump

Vacuum Pump

CSqB

PL

L

p

LP

2112

Patm=101.3 KPa

Pinternal=~0 KPa

Dt

Patm=101.3 KPa

Pinternal=~0 KPa

Dt

Patm=101.3 KPa

Pinternal=~0 KPa

Dt

Tube Geometry/Parameters (cont.)• Other Tolerances: Taguchi! (at NLCTA)

– Also gives opportunity to try Al.

SLAC NLCTA Spec Standard Extrusion Standard DrawnCircularity (Deviation from mean diameter) +/- 0.005" +/- 0.050" +/- 0.016"

Surface Finish 32 microinch RMS 0.003" max 0.005" maxStraightness .010" per 24" .010" per 24" .010" per 24"

Thickness +/- 0.010" +/- 0.0125" +/- 0.006"

Dimensions for 5.1" ID tubing1

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

Taguchi L4 Array

1Standards per the Aluminum Association, Inc.

Joint Design • “Quick Flange” w/o-ring

– Off the shelf– Precisely Locates– Rated to 10-7 Torr vacuum

• Up to 10-9 w/viton & bake-outor perhaps metal o-rings

– One Fastener– Tolerates Radiation

• 1 x 105 rad/10 yr = ~800 yr. life

• Form Flange ends into Al tube– Minimize risk w/proven geometry– Minimize cost w/integration

Tubes: Make vs. Buy• If made on-sight, could enable “infinite” length, but

distance between pumps & handling reasons make this impractical.

• Want to outsource1 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.

• Nearly all apply!

1Per Carol Nast, outsourcing expert in medical devices

Tube Segment Length

• 40 ft. long sections– Max Shippable by standard means– Manufacturable– 96.2 lb. per segment- easy to handle– Strength: 1.5 g bump = ~26% of yield- OK!

R

F2 F2

F1

L

Dt

R

F2 F2

F1

L

Dt

Cleaning• Flow Cleaning Agents through ID rather

than bathe tubes.– Only uses expensive cleaning agents on ID

where needed.– Minimizes Evaporative Losses– Ensures even cleaning

Chemical Tank

Pump

FLOW

Sealed ends

Scorecard• Project Objective: 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

Implementation Process

12.2 meters

Aluminum Drill hole Extrude Post- Draw Form & MachinePlug Ends

Ship segments Clean Segments

12.2 meters

Fill w/Nitrogen & plug ends, Join segments in tunnel,Transport to tunnel Perform QA

12.2 meters

Aluminum Drill hole Extrude Post- Draw Form & MachinePlug Ends

Ship segments Clean Segments

12.2 meters12.2 meters

Fill w/Nitrogen & plug ends, Join segments in tunnel,Transport to tunnel Perform QA

Implementation Process

• Extrusion

• Drawing

Competitive Analysis• Alternatives designed for same performance

• Main differentiator is Cost

NLCTA

Cu Tube w/ Quickflange

(incorporating endform)

Al Tube w/ Quickflange

(incorporating endforming)

Steel Tube w/ Cu & Quickflange (incorporating endforming)

Material Cost $7,701,987 $7,701,987 $2,860,489 $5,861,055

Tube Mfg. Costs $1,955,307 $1,955,307 $1,955,307 $1,955,307

Joint Component Costs $6,834,467 $2,323,162 $2,323,162 $2,323,162

Joint Assembly Costs $243,936 $7,519 $7,519 $7,519

Plating Costs

$ - $ - $ - $10,372,951

Cleaning Costs $8,784,800 $6,839,098 $6,839,098 $6,840,060

Total Cost: $25,520,497 $18,827,073 $13,985,575 $27,360,054

Cost Differentiators

• Material Choice

• Joint Choice

Material2' X 5" Round

Cost/ cu.in.

Tube I.D.

Waveguide Vol. (cu.in.)

Total Mat'l Cost

Expected Mat'l Cost (at 40% discount)

Copper $456 $0.97 4.75" 13,265,107 $12,836,644 $7,701,987 Aluminum $158 $0.34 5.1" 14,218,554 $4,767,481 $2,860,489 Stainless $347 $0.74 4.75" 13,265,107 $9,768,425 $5,861,055

Quick Flange Costs $129.16Conflat Costs $182.81 38,720 $7,078,403

18,045Total Flange Costs

$2,330,632

# of Joints with 40' Al sections or 5-meter Cu

sections & pumps every 160'

Cost Differentiators

• Plating and Cleaning

Cleaning Chemicals

Cleaning Labor

Cleaning Hardware

Plating Material

Plating Labor

Plating Hardware Total Cost

Copper w/ Conflat $42,736 $7,742,064 $1,000,000 $ - $ - $ - $8,784,800 Copper w/ Quick Flange $32,060 $5,808,000 $1,000,000 $ - $ - $ - $6,840,060 Aluminum $31,098 $5,808,000 $1,000,000 $ - $ - $ - $6,839,098 Steel $32,060 $5,808,000 $1,000,000 $80,151 $9,292,800 $1,000,000 $17,213,011

Summary of Cost Improvements

Cost Breakdown: Baseline NLCTA vs. Proposed Design

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Alum

inum

NLCT

A

Alum

inum

NLCT

A

Alum

inum

NLCT

A

Alum

inum

NLCT

A

Tube Joint Cleaning Total

Cost

($ M

illion

s)

Labor

Hardware/Raw Material

• 45% Savings!

Risks

• True Vacuum Requirements

• Reliability of Aluminum

• Packaging Requirements of Aluminum

• Pump Cost vs. Seal Savings

• Waveguide Assembly and Service

Questions?