The overall IFMIF cost estimate has been analyzed through a series of charts which provide a relative comparison of many factors which are common to all facilities of this type.

Chart 5-1 shows a percentage distribution of the TPC by WBS level two elements. Note that the accelerator accounts for approximately half of the total project cost, a common "rule of thumb" for accelerator based facilities. Also note that the relatively low cost of central control and instrumentation assumes a configuration in which each technical facility provides a stand-alone control capability which is included in the individual facility cost estimates.

Figure 5-1. Distribution of TPC by WBS level 2 elements.

Chart 5-2 shows a percentage distribution of the TPC by major types of costs which is close to that expected for a large construction project. The engineering numbers appear low, however, the IFMIF WBS includes a substantial amount of engineering in project management, EVP and Startup and Commissioning. Thus the actual total engineering cost will be closer to the expected value of 30 to 35%.

Figure 5-2. Distribution of basic cost types

Figure 5-3 shows the distribution of AFI for the total system and each major WBS element. The overall value of 27% seems reasonable since the IFMIF configuration is well established from the FMIT project. Note that the majority of the AFI is determined by the relatively complex accelerator faculty which has an AFI factor of 35%.

Figure 5-3. Distribution of TEC Allowance for Indeterminates

The estimate shows that up to 85% of the IFMIF cost could be contracted to commercial vendors as shown in Figure 5-4. This value includes Project Management; if only the individual facilities are considered, the factor would be more than 90%.

Figure 5-4 Industrial-Laboratory distribution

The estimate shows that up to 70% of the IFMIF cost could ideally be spent "off-site" as shown in Figure 5-5. A more realistic value will probably be lower when a specific site has been selected and additional construction and management functions are located at the IFMIF site.

Figure 5-5. "On-site"-"off-site" distribution

Figure 5-6 shows the percentage of TPC costs for the management of both the overall project and each facility. The "Overall" figure is a combination of both the WBS 1.0 Project Management total and the sum of all the Facility management costs. It is based on historical values for large projects while the facilities management costs were estimated individually by each responsible party. The Target and Accelerator systems are considered the most complex and thus have relatively high management costs. Conventional facilities are to be managed by the Construction Manager which is costed in WBS 1.0 once construction begins thus the value is relatively low.

Figure 5-6. Management cost distribution

1. IFMIF Conceptual Design Activity Final Report, IFMIF CDA Team, Edited by M. Martone, ENEA, Frascati Italy, No. RT/ERG/FUS/96/11, December, 1996

2. IFMIF Conceptual Design Activity Preliminary Cost Report, Compiled by M. J. Rennich, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, ORNL/M-5230, July 1995, [Limited Distribution].

3. Proposed Tasks for International Fusion Materials Irradiation Facility - Engineering Validation Phase, IFMIF-CDA Team, JAERI-memo 08-173, August 1996

Cost Estimate Analysis