1 1.8.1.1.3.3.6 structural and failure analysis cost & risk assessment shahram sharafat tbm cost...

1

1.8.1.1.3.3.6 Structural and Failure Analysis

Cost & Risk Assessment

Shahram Sharafat

TBM Cost Estimate Meeting

UCLA

Dec. 12-13, 2005

2

Lower Level WBS Elements for Structural & Failure Analysis

1.8.1.1.3.3.6 Structural Analysis

Sharafat This Structural & Failure Analysis (SFA) WBS includes establishment of a SFA task force, setting up the infrastructure for SFA task force (including automated archiving system of all activities and reports), evaluation of design parameters, establishing material property adequacy and needs, performing all normal and off normal operational thermal and structural analyses, interpretation of results, integration with fabrication and manufacturing activities, validating results based on tests, and full reporting of all activities.

1.8.1.1.3.3.6.1 Ttask force and integration

This Structural & Failure Analysis (SFA) WBS includes establishment of the SFA Task Force along with setting up the infrastructure for SFA task force – ITER TBM development team interaction. A semi-automated archiving system of all activities and reports on a the Internet will have to be developed, which will become the primary analysis database. Analysis request forms and work order requests, as well as reporting templates have to be developed and implemented.

1.8.1.1.3.3.6.2 Design evaluation

In support of the design activities, exploratory thermal and structural design analyses are performed. After completion of preliminary analyses, design evaluation results in iteration with the design team regarding design feature modifications and enhancements. Fabrication and assembly issues are also part of design evaluation task, in that structural and failure analysis will investigate fabrication effects on material properties and thus on structural response. All relevant design parameters are translated into boundary conditions and loads for ensuing analyses.

US Test Blanket Work Breakdown Structure

3

ACTION 1&2: Lower Level WBS Elements- Structural Analysis (2)

1.8.1.1.3.3.6.3 Modeling and computation

Modeling and computation WBS includes all aspects of finite element based structural and thermal analysis of the TBM, TBM components, and TBM subcomponents. Analysis categories, event categories, justification of models and loadings are all categorized. Development of 3-D geometric models are justified. Structural and thermal analyses are performed for normal and off-normal operating conditions, which includes both steady state and transient analyses. Result validation and comparison with analytical and/or experimental results are performed. Design rules and acceptance criteria are applied to analysis results to determine level of confidence and uncertainties. If necessary “Design by Experiment” needs are identified and reported. All activities are documented and archived on the SFA task force web-based database.

1.8.1.1.3.3.6.4 Validation and testing

This WBS includes the development of recommended experiments and tests to allow validation of critical analysis results. Interactions with materials development communities and manufacturing industries are on an as needed bases. Analysis benchmarking will be performed when ever possible

4

TBM-

Structural and Failure Analysis

Earlier Cost Estimates: Oct. 2005

5

ACTIVITY LIST

ACTIVITIES LISTWBS 1.8.1.1.3.3.6 DCLL Test Module Structural and Failure Analysis

Activity # ActivitiesDuration (months) Start Date Predessors Successors

Mar-061.8.1.1.3.3.6 Structural Analysis Mar-06

1.8.1.1.3.3.6.1 Task force and integration 6 Mar-06 NA1.8.1.1.3.3.6.2 Design evaluation 3 Mar-06 TBM Design Team1.8.1.1.3.3.6.3 Modeling and computation 12 Mar-06 ITER Structural Analysis Teams1.8.1.1.3.3.6.4 Validation and testing 3 Mar-06 ITER Structural Analysis Teams + Fabrication Industries

Key Assumptions:

6

TASK-E: 1.8.1.1.3.3.1 Task Force & Infrastructure

E.1 Organizational E.1.1 Establish SFA Task Force E.1.2 Develop and maintain "SFA-Database"

- Intranet Web-Site for Maintaining Rolling Records of SFA Activities

E.1.3 Establish Guidelines and Procedures for SFA Calculations E.1.4 Establish Protocols for Interaction with Design Team Members E.1.5 Establish Protocol for Interaction with Fabrication Team Members E.1.6 Establish Guidelines and Protocols for SFA Results Reporting E.1.7 Develop Templates and Forms E.1.7.1 Request for Work Order E.1.7.2 Request for Material Property Data E.1.7.3 Request for Material Property Models E.1.7.4 Request for "Design by Experiment" E.1.8 Channeling and assignment of tasks to SFA members

E.2 Material Properties Tracking E.2.1 Submit Request for tailoring and expanding US-Fusion Materials Database for SFA

Needs (add Breeder Materials, SiC, Cu, Be, W: as needed)

E.2.2 Augment US-Fusion Materials Database with Material Property Models E.2.3 Augment US-Fusion Materials Database with Material Property Data from Fabrication

Activities

Task E: WORK BREADKDOWN SCHEDULE

7

TASK-B: 1.8.1.1.3.3.2 Design Evaluation

B.1 Design Engineering and Analysis B.1.1 Receive, Approve, Archive SFA Work Order Request (SFA-WO) B.1.2 Record Design Feature Details (thickness, fillets, rounds, chamfers, welds, brazes, etc.) on Analysis Database B.1.3 Determine Design Tolerances B.1.4 Identify Material Choices B.1.5 Identify Loads and Load Histories B.1.6 Establish Event Category B.1.7 Complete SFA-WOR B.1.6 Archive B1.1.1 - B1.1.7 in Analysis Database

B.2 Archiving Results B.2.1 Channel SFA Result Report to Design Team B.2.2 Report Key SFA Findings to Design Team B.2.3 Archive Design Team Response to SFA Results B.2.4 Establish further Need for SFA B.2.5 Archive Future Action on Analysis Database

Task B: WORK BREADKDOWN SCHEDULE

8

TASK-A: 1.8.1.1.3.3.3 Modeling and Computation

A.1 Structural & Failure Analysis Calculations A.1.1 Establish Analysis Category A.1.1.1 Thermal A.1.1.2 Mechanical A.1.1.3 Thermo-Mechanical

A.1.1.4 Multiphysics A.1.2 Establish Component-Type Analysis A.1.2.1 Global SFA (entire components) A.1.2.2 Local or Substructure Analysis A.1.2.3 TBM Structural Component A.1.2.4 Breeder A.1.2.5 Structure-Breeder Interaction A.1.2.6 TBM Support Structure A.1.2.7 Piping A.1.2.8 Solid Joints (HIP, welds, brazes, coatings) A.1.2.9 Frictional Joints (flanges, bolts, fittings) A.1.2.10 Flexible Joint A.1.2.11 Cooling Manifolds

A.1.2.12 Other: Keys, Gaskets, etc. A.1.3 Establish Event Category A.1.3.1 Normal Operation A.1.3.2 Off-Normal Operation A.1.3.3 Transients A.1.3.4 Cyclic A.1.3.5 Creep A.1.3.6 Disruption A.1.3.7 Start-Up

A.1.3.8 Shut-Down A.1.4 Determine Analysis Type (mechanical only) A.1.4.1 Elastic A.1.4.2 Inelastic A.1.4.2.1 Load Limit & Elastic-Perfectly Plastic A.1.4.2.2 Elastic-Plastic A.1.4.3 Buckling

A.1.4.4 Modal A.1.5 Establish Service Requirements (allowable damage limits) A.1.5.1 Operational A.1.5.2 Likely A.1.5.3 Unlikely

A.1.5.4 Extremely Unlikely Event

A.1.6 Assess Analysis Requirements A.1.6.1 Model

A.1.6.1.1 Component/design geometry details A.1.6.1.2 Interface information A.1.6.1.3 Boundary conditions A.1.6.1.4 Loads A.1.6.1.5 Loading History A.1.6.1.6 Explanatory Diagrams A.1.6.1.7 CAD model transferability A.1.6.2 Material Property Data and Models A.1.6.2.1 Property data

A.1.6.2.2 Property models (constitutive eqs., damage functions) A.1.7 Justify 3-D models used for geometry and loadings A.1.8 Develop 3-D Geometry Models A.1.8.1 Import or create 3-D models A.1.8.2 Justify 3-D model simplifications (if any) A.1.8.3 Justify loading model A.1.9 Perform Structural & Failure Analysis Calculations A.1.9.1 FEM: A.1.9.1.1 Establish computational needs A.1.9.1.2 Upload and run FEM A.1.9.1.3 Archive model, loading, and results A.1.9.2 Perform analytical calculations (when possible) A.2 Analysis of Results A.2.1 Assessment of Validity of Results A.2.2 Compare with analytical or experimental results A.2.3 Compare results with acceptance criteria: A.2.2.1 Identify and classify stresses (primary, secondary, bending, membrane, etc.)

A.2.2.2 Determine stress and/or strain concentration factors A.2.2.3 Compare with SDC-IC design rules (stresses, strains, deformations, damage

fractions, etc.) A.2.4 Determine uncertainties A.2.5 Establish need for "design by experiment" (too complex for SFA alone):

A.2.4.1 Unacceptable uncertainties A.2.4.2 Non-justifiable simplifications A.2.4.3 Insufficient material property data or models A.3 Reporting Results A.3.1 Report and Archive Results on Analysis Database A.3.2 Write and Archive Results Summary Report on Analysis Database

Task A: WORK BREADKDOWN SCHEDULE

9

TASK-D: 1.8.1.1.3.3.3 Modeling and Computation (2)

D.1 Detailing Operational Conditions and Analysis Requirements D.1.2 Acquire Detailed Operating Conditions of Component from TBM Team D.1.3 Record Details of the Event Category D.1.4 Identify Material Property Data and Modeling Sufficiency for SFA D.1.5 Report to Materials Development and Fabrication Teams any needed Material

Property Data D.1.6 Report to Materials Modeling Team any needed Property Models (constitutive

eqs., damage functions) D.1.7 Identify Design Rules and Codes (SDC-IC) Sufficiency D.1.8 Archive D.12 - D.1.7 in Analysis Database

D.2 Integration with SFA Calculation Team D.2.1 Channel Operational Conditions to SFA Calculation Team D.2.2 Supply SFA Team with Material Property and Model Data D.2.3 Inform SFA Team of ITER Design Rules to be used (SDC-IC) D.3 Archiving SFA Operational Damage Response D.3.1 Archive Response from SFA Team on Impact of Operational Condition on Analysis

Task D: WORK BREADKDOWN SCHEDULE

10

TASK-C: 1.8.1.1.3.3.4 Validation and Testing Engineering

C.1 Interfacing with Fabrication Engineering Team C.1.1 Establish Component Fabrication Methods in Analysis Database C.1.1.1 Forming and Shaping Procedures C.1.1.2 Joining C.1.1.2.1 HIP C.1.1.2.2 Weld C.1.1.2.3 Braze C.1.1.2.4 Bolt

C.1.1.2.5 Coating C.1.2 Submit Fabrication Team with Needed Material Property Data C.1.2.1 Physical C.1.2.2 Thermal C.1.2.3 Mechanical C.1.2.3.1 Fracture C.1.2.3.2 DBTT C.1.2.3.3 Creep C.1.2.3.4 Fatigue C.1.2.3.5 Irradiation C.1.2.4 Microstructure C.1.2.4.1 Grain Structure C.1.2.4.2 Defect, bubble, density

C.2 Integration of Fabrication Engr. Response C.2.1 Acquire and Archive Fabrication Procedures

C.2.2 Archive Material Data and Material Models in Analysis Database

C.3 Integration with SFA Calculation Team C.3.1 Inform SFA Team of Fabrication Procedures C.3.2 Request SFA Team to analyze and comment on Fabrication Impact on analysis results (e.g., residual stresses) C.3.3 Archive Response from SFA Team on Fabrication Impact on Analysis

C.4 Request for "Design by Experiment" (DBE) C.4.1 Identify Need for DBE (mission critical component; inconclusive SFA results, analysis too comples for SFA alone)

C.4.2 Report Requirements/Conditions for DBE to Fabrication Team

Task C: WORK BREADKDOWN SCHEDULE

11

RISK ASSESSMENT (1)

WBS Number: 1.8.1.1.3.3.6.1

DATE: Nov 30, 2005

1. PROJECT ELEMENT, STEP, OR ACTIVITY: Task Force and Project Integration: Includes establishment of Structural & Failure Analysis (SFA) Task Force along with setting up the infrastructure for SFA activities & with ITER TBM development team. A semi-automated archiving system of all activities and reports on the Internet will have to be developed, which will become the primary analysis database. Interaction protocols, such as analysis request forms and work order requests, as well as reporting templates have to be developed and implemented. Data needs and structures have to be established along with hardware and software needs.

2. POTENTIAL PROBLEM (Risk): Underestimate database, archiving, hardware and software needs along with underestimating the personnel needs.

3. LIKELIHOOD OF OCCURRENCE (unlikely, likely, very likely) : unlikely

4. EXPECTED CONSEQUENCE) : Design evaluation phase of TBM might be delayed by as much as a couple of months.

5. CONSEQUENCE LEVEL (marginal, significant, critical) : marginal

6. RISK CATEGORIZATION (high, medium, low) : low

7. LIKELY CAUSES: Underestimation of scope of effort

8. MITIGATION ACTION(S) : Rapid reassessment and restructuring of task force along with necessary hardware and software needs.

9. RESPONSIBLE INDIVIDUAL(S) : S. Sharafat (UCLA)

10. EXPECTED CLOSEOUT DATE: (assume funding is provided as requested): March 2007

12

RISK ASSESSMENT (2)

WBS Number: 1.8.1.1.3.3.6.2

DATE: Nov 30, 2005

1. PROJECT ELEMENT, STEP, OR ACTIVITY: Design Evaluation : In support of the design activities, exploratory thermal and structural design analyses are performed. After completion of preliminary analyses, design evaluation results must be iterated with the design team to determine necessary design feature modifications and/or enhancements. Fabrication and assembly issues are also part of the design evaluation task, in that structural and failure analysis must include fabrication effects on material properties and structural response. All relevant design parameters are translated into boundary conditions and loads for ensuing analyses.

2. POTENTIAL PROBLEM (Risk): Communication failure with the ITER TBM development team could result in a non-optimized TBM at best or wrongly analyzed TBM performance.


4. EXPECTED CONSEQUENCE): TBM –design is wrongly analyzed leading to non-optimized designs.

5. CONSEQUENCE LEVEL (marginal, significant, critical) : significant

6. RISK CATEGORIZATION (high, medium, low) : medium

7. LIKELY CAUSES: Lack of proper communications

8. MITIGATION ACTION(S) : Set up a system of proper communication protocols.


10. EXPECTED CLOSEOUT DATE: (assume funding is provided as requested) March 2010

13

RISK ASSESSMENT (3) WBS Number: 1.8.1.1.3.3.6.3

DATE: Nov 30, 2005

1. PROJECT ELEMENT, STEP, OR ACTIVITY: Modeling and computation: Modeling and computation includes all aspects of finite element based structural and thermal analysis of the TBM, TBM components, and TBM subcomponents. Analysis categories, event categories, justification of models and loadings are all categorized. Development of 3-D geometric FEN models are justified. Structural and thermal analyses are performed for normal and off-normal operating conditions, which includes both steady state and transient analyses. Result validation and comparison with analytical and/or experimental results are performed. Design rules and acceptance criteria are applied to analysis results to determine level of confidence and uncertainties. If necessary “Design by Experiment” needs are identified and reported. All activities are documented and archived on the SFA task force web-based database.

2. POTENTIAL PROBLEM (Risk): Incorrect FEM analysis of TBM response during normal and off-normal operation. Premature or catastrophic failure of TBM during normal and off-normal operation. Underestimation of required material strengths, thicknesses, and fabrication techniques.


4. EXPECTED CONSEQUENCE) : Catastrophic failure of TBM during normal operation.

5. CONSEQUENCE LEVEL (marginal, significant, critical) : critical

6. RISK CATEGORIZATION (high, medium, low) : high

7. LIKELY CAUSES: Lack of proper material property models, lack of time for proper FEM analysis, late communication of last minute design changes, lack of personnel , lack of computing power, lack of proper software/hardware, underestimation of required FTE.

8. MITIGATION ACTION(S) : Visit ITER home-teams (EU, JP) and establish proper communication and support structure for FEM analysis, learn from their experience. Increase FTE, increase computing hardware, increase communication with design team and ITER team.



14

RISK ASSESSMENT (4)

WBS Number: 1.8.1.1.3.3.6.4

DATE: Nov 30, 2005

1. PROJECT ELEMENT, STEP, OR ACTIVITY: Validation and Testing: Includes the development of recommended experiments and tests to allow validation of critical analysis results. Interactions with materials development communities and manufacturing industries are on an as-needed-basis. Analysis benchmarking will be performed when ever possible

2. POTENTIAL PROBLEM (Risk): Not identifying most likely and potential failure paths.

3. LIKELIHOOD OF OCCURRENCE (unlikely, likely, very likely) : likely

4. EXPECTED CONSEQUENCE) : Long term delay of delivering the TBM on day one for ITER installation.

5. CONSEQUENCE LEVEL (marginal, significant, critical) : critical

6. RISK CATEGORIZATION (high, medium, low) : high

7. LIKELY CAUSES: Lack of “new” materials (F82H, welds, etc.) property models along with lack of industrial experience with the new materials and their fabrication and joining techniques.

8. MITIGATION ACTION(S) : Stay in very close communication with material development and fabrication community. Also, establish close communication channels with ITER home teams and keep abreast latest material and modeling issues.



15

WBS/Title: 1.8.1.1.3.3.6 Structural and Failure AnalysisOne Sheet for Each WBS Level 7 or below

COSTING BY / DATEShahram Sharafat 11/19/2005

FY 2006 year's dollars*

WBS # Item #Schedule Activity ID DESCRIPTION QTY UNITS

$ / UNIT (burdened)

PACKAGING & SHIPPING

$ TOTAL-$ HRS$/HR

(Burdened)

1.8.1.1.3.3.6 Structural & Failure Analysis1.8.1.1.3.3.6.1 YYYY Task Force and Integration -$ -$

1 Labor -$ -$ 100 173$ 2 Travel - Domestic 1 Software 500.00 -$ 500$ -$ 3 Travel - Foreign 1 Computer 1,500.00 -$ 1,500$ -$ -$ -$ -$

1.8.1.1.3.3.6.2 YYYY Design Evaluation -$ -$ 4 Labor -$ -$ 250 149$

5 Travel - Domestic -$ -$ -$ 6 Travel - Foreign -$ -$ -$

1.8.1.1.3.3.6.3 YYYY Modeling and Computation -$ -$ 7 Labor -$ -$ 1000 149$

8 Travel - Domestic 3 Software (HC) 8,000.00 -$ 24,000$ -$ 9 Travel - Foreign 1 Computer (EJ) 75,000.00 -$ 75,000$ -$

1.8.1.1.3.3.6.4 YYYY Validation/Testing -$ -$ 10 Labor -$ -$ 100 149$

11 Travel - Domestic -$ -$ -$ 12 Travel - Foreign -$ -$ -$

-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

subtotal -$ 101,000$ 1450Sales Tax Tot FTEs 0.69

LABORMATERIAL/EQUIPMENT

16

BASIS CODELABOR CODE

ACQUISITION CODE

RESOURCE CODE

PARTICIPANT CODE

BURDENED COST COMMENTS/ASSUMPTIONS

-$ Level of effort during ITER EDA acitivitesEJ P PM UCLA/N.Lab/Ind. 17,300$ SFA Task Force: Setting up and Integration Network (2 hr/wk)HC FP MA, T 1,750$ One domestic tripHC FP MA 1,500$

-$ -$

EJ P RD UCLA/N.Lab/Ind. 37,250$ Interaction with ITER Design Team (5 hr/wk)

T 1,250$ One domestic trip-$

-$ EJ P RD UCLA/N.Lab/Ind. 149,000$ CAD, FEM Modeling, Analysis, Result interpretation (20 hr/wk)

HC MA,T 25,250$ One domestic tripEJ MA,T 79,500$ Two foreign trips

-$ EJ P RD UCLA/N.Lab/Ind. 14,900$ Validation/Testing: Devel. Test Meth.; Interact w Manuf.(2 hr/wk)

T 1,250$ One domestic tripT 2,250$ One foreign trip

-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

331,200$

331,200$

Contingency Technical Risk 0-15 8%Contingency Technical Risk Weight 1,2,4 4

Contingency Cost Risk 0-15 6%Contingency Cost Risk Weight 1,2,4 4

Contingency Schedule Risk 0-15 4%

Unknown Unknowns __% 50

COST CODES

17

Summary Cost Estimate

Preliminary Design •Detailed Design •Title III SupportWBS Name Article 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

1.8.1.1.3.1 Sharafat Labor+Travel 230,200$ 313,489$ 1.8.1.1.3.1 Sharafat Hardware 101,000$ 44,000$

1.8.1.1.3.2 Sharafat Labor+Travel 322,541$ 331,864$ 341,468$ 1.8.1.1.3.2 Sharafat Hardware 44,000$ 44,000$ 44,000$

1.8.1.1.3.3 Sharafat Labor+Travel 174,128$ 179,134$ 184,290$ 84,270$ 1.8.1.1.3.3 Sharafat Hardware 29,000$ 29,000$ 29,000$ 29,000$

•Title III Support2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 TOTAL

543,689$ 145,000$

341,468$ 995,873$ 44,000$ 132,000$

174,128$ 179,134$ 184,290$ 84,270$ 88,830$ 710,652$ 29,000$ 29,000$ 29,000$ 29,000$ 29,000$ 145,000$

2,672,213$

18

Backup Slides on Detailed WBS

1 1.8.1.1.3.3.6 structural and failure analysis cost & risk assessment shahram sharafat tbm cost...

Documents

sfa members

sfa results

sfa calculations

analysis category

sfa task force

sfa needs

analysis database task

substructure analysis