Summary of NCSX SIT Meeting of Monday, Apr. 21, 2003

1. PDR Preparation Schedule

Preparations for the PDR are behind schedule. Progress in some areas is slower than expected, and consequently there is risk that we may not be ready for the PDR on June 24, the current schedule.  A 2-3-month delay in the PDR (from June to Aug. or Sept.) may be the prudent course to greatly improve the chances of being successful. The issues bearing on a possible delay were discussed.

* Modular coil geometry modeling. -Brad

The M50_256.z01 coil pack orientation is being manually optimized (by Dave W.) to create enough space between coils for structure, clamps, etc. in the tight spots on the inboard side. This is a time-consuming manual process, but it is progressing. Brad's expectation is that Z01 will ultimately work but it is difficult to predict how long it will take. Meanwhile, details are being added to the model, such as the poloidal break, clamps, cooling, and outer shell surface details.

* Possibilities for improving the coil geometry. -All

Some of the coil pack build elements have grown, exacerbating the crowding problem and pushing up current density. If we could reduce the build in the tight spots, it could help the geometry optimization. Elements to look at:

- Insulation thickness

- Tee thickness

- Copper packing fraction

- Clamps

- Cooling tubes, copper strips.

- Potting mold.

We will review these at the next WBS 1 meeting, this Wednesday 4/23. ACTION: Brad.

Various winding-law modifications have been tried recently but so far all failed the PIES test. The perturbation from Z01 to E01 caused a significant loss of magnetic surfaces, but the perturbation from E01 to E03 did not make it worse. Thus, manual winding-law perturbations are not out of the question. They would have to be checked for physics properties and magnetic surfaces.

* Winding pack properties and allowables. -Brad

We are depending on test data from CTD and UT to define properties and allowables needed for structural and thermal analysis. The testing is late getting started. As a workaround, the plan is to proceed with the analysis using upper and lower bounding values. This will support the June 24 PDR schedule if the test results are within the assumed bounds. The risk is that they will be out of bounds with no time left to modify the  design to react.

* MCWF and VV budgetary cost estimates from the suppliers. -Phil

The MCWF contracts were placed a few weeks ago and the suppliers are working on their Phase I tasks. They are using the proposal drawings (CDR design with modifications such as the poloidal break). They are working to a May 23 deadline for budgetary estimates, with formal reports to follow about 2 weeks later. This supports the June 24 schedule. The risk is that it leaves little time to iterate if the estimates are high.

The VV contracts were just awarded and kickoff meetings are being scheduled. We will ask them to support the May 23 deadline for budgetary estimates.

MCWF and VV Prototypes: Not needed for the PDR but important for the FDR. We will soon need to authorize the suppliers to start on prototype fabrication tasks. We need to decide in about two weeks what drawings we want them to use.

ACTION: Brad.

* Re-baselining. -Ron

Updated estimates are coming in from WBS managers, but some are expected to be late. Nominally supports the June 24 schedule but leaves little time for iteration if needed to control cost and schedule growth.

ACTION: Ron to develop a schedule for collecting, reviewing, and compiling the updated estimates.

* Implications for downstream schedule and budgets. -Ron

The design delays imply a 3-month delay in the modular coil FDR, and a 2-month delay in the VV FDR. A 3-month delay in the PDR is consistent with that. Procurement of the MCWF and VV would be correspondingly delayed. However, TF and PF procurements, previously delayed to FY05 because of budget constraints, could be accelerated to FY04. The delay in the critical path could be made up in the field-period assembly phase by going to double shift, preserving the first plasma date the schedule contingency.

It was pointed out that work packages not affected by the modular coil design problems could proceed as planned or even accelerate. By September, the TF and PF could be ready for their PDRs. If the Project PDR were held then, the TF/PF PDRs could be folded in, making it a more complete review. This is a silver lining if we decide to delay.

* Swapping the order of the QPS CDR and NCSX PDR. -Jim

If the NCSX PDR is delayed, the QPS CDR will be moved up to June. Preparations will have to start immediately. Part  of the ORNL design effort will shift attention to QPS to support the CDR preparations. Critical tasks supporting the NCSX PDR would be affected but would not be interrupted. With careful planning and some load re-balancing between PPPL and ORNL, we should be able to manage this.

Further discussions with Lab management and DOE are planned this week before making a decision. The consensus recommendation  of the SIT is to delay the PDR at least to August.

2. Next SIT Meeting:  Monday, April 28, 2003.

Summary by:

Hutch Neilson