DCLL TBM Cost

Applying Module 18 Logic

August 10-12, 2005

M. Ulrickson
Presented at US TBM Meeting at
Idaho National Laboratory

Sandia is a multiprogram laboratory operated by Sandia Corporation, a Lockheed Martin Company,

for the United States Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration
under contract DE-AC04-94AL85000.
 Outline

• Costs Determined From Divertor EDA

• TBM Differences
• US ITER Cost Contingency Methodology
• My Estimate
• The WBS Structure for Mod 18
• Open Issues
• Summary

MAU 2 5/20/2003
 Costs Determined From Divertor EDA

• A complete cost estimate was done for the ITER

divertor (EDA) using fabrication techniques
resulting from extensive R&D and testing.
• The cost estimate was done bottoms up by an
Industry team and was very detailed.
• The divertor PFCs were actively cooled (CFC or W
on Cu alloy on 316 LN SS)
• The cost of an actively cooled PFC per unit area
is a good way to extrapolate cost.
• The cost was $300K/m2 (escalated from 1996)

MAU 3 5/20/2003
 TBM Differences
• The TBM has a more
complex cooling path.
• The TBM is He gas cooled.
• The TM has tighter radius
bends on the plasma
facing surface.
• There is no experience
joining Be to Ferritic Steel
• Fabrication experience
with Ferritic steel is limited
• My judgment is that the
TBM will be X3 more
expensive than the typical
ITER PFC per unit area.
MAU 4 5/20/2003
 US ITER Cost Contingency Methodology

• The contingency to be placed on a cost estimate

depends on the maturity of the design and R&D
and an assessment of the project risks.
• Three factors are to be considered
– Technical risk based on the current state and level
of design
– Cost risk based on estimating methodology
– Schedule risk based on the criticality to the overall
project schedule
• The risk factors were weighted by the level of
uncertainty and summed to get the contingency

MAU 5 5/20/2003
 Technical Risk Factors
Technical Risk Risk Factor
Existing Design and off the 1
shelf hardware
Minor modifications to an 2
existing design
Extensive modification 3
New design, not exotic 4
New design slight difference 6
New design some R&D 8
New design advance SOA 10
New design way beyond 15
SOA
MAU 6 5/20/2003
 Cost Risk Factors

Cost Risk Factor

Off the shelf or catalog item 1
Vendor quote from draw’gs 2
Vendor Quote from sketches 3
In-house estimate (exper.) 4
In-house est. (min-exper., 6
sim. cap.)
In-house est. (min. exper., no 8
cap.)
Top down (similar prog.) 10
Engineering Judgment 15
MAU 7 5/20/2003
 Schedule Risk Factors

Schedule Risk Factor

No schedule impact on any 2

other subsystem

Delays completion of non- 4

critical path subsystem

Delays completion of critical 8

path subsystem

MAU 8 5/20/2003
 Weighting Factors

Area Condition Weight

Technical Design or 2
Manufact. issues
Design and 4
Manufact. issues
Cost Material or labor 1
uncertainties
Material and labor 2
uncertainties
Schedule All 1

MAU 9 5/20/2003
 TBM Application

• Technical = 15(4); Cost = 15 (2); Schedule = 4 (1)

• Contingency is 60+30+4 or 94%
• If the TBM is essential to meet the ITER mission
and it must be installed by start of plasma
operations, the schedule contingency doubles.
This means that the contingency required is
equal to the cost estimate!

MAU 10 5/20/2003
 My Estimate
Component Cost Estimate ($K)
PFC 1500
Structure 800
SiC FCI ?
Auxiliary Systems 9300
He Loop 7500
PbLi loop 1800
T system ?
R&D (join, Be, mockups) 8200
Total 19800+?
For 10 cm frame thickness!
MAU 11 5/20/2003
 The WBS Structure for Mod 18

• First Wall
– Administration
– R&D
• Be to Cu Joining
• Cu to 316 SS joining
• Prototype Testing
– Engineering
• Design (CDR, PDR, FDR)
• Title III
– Fabrication/procurement
– Spares

MAU 12 5/20/2003
 The WBS Structure for Mod 18

• Shield
– Administration
– R&D
• Weld Development
• Casting Development
• Prototype Testing
– Engineering
• Design
• Title III
– Fabrication
– Assembly of FW to Shield
– Spares

MAU 13 5/20/2003
 Open Issues

• SiC flow channel inserts are complete unknowns

(no R&D yet). The alternate insulator coatings are
in early R&D stages and not proven with PbLi
• Fabrication of such complex Ferritic Steel
structures is unknown. (joining, surface
roughening for hc, load capacity of joints, etc.)
• Be to Ferritic joining is unknown (beryllide
formation)
• QA/QC methods are unknown
• Size of auxiliary systems is uncertain (EM pump,
He system)

MAU 14 5/20/2003
 Summary

• Some estimate of the cost of the DCLL TBM can

be made using previous experience with PFCs for
ITER.
• There are several key issues that require
immediate R&D if the TBM must be installed on
day 1
• The recommended cost contingency is 94-100%
of the estimated cost.
• The likelihood of occurrence of problems and
consequence of an occurrence place the TBM in
the high risk category.

MAU 15 5/20/2003