MICE Collaboration Meeting

1
MICE Collaboration Meeting Frascati 26 29 June
2005 Work Group report On Design Safety
Review
2
The task We have agreed a working method at the
Berkeley meeting in February. This was endorsed
both by the Wok group and the Collaboration
Board In Phase 1 we have a total of 16
components that require such reviews.. Progress
to date Well.slow.could have done better So
far we have 5 Design Audits collected, two of
which may require substantial re-work to bring it
inline with the rest We have also received 3
Safety audit returns and there are not much in
them. Most boxes are filled with a to be carried
out later message
3
(No Transcript)
4
The audit sheets that have been returned to me
5
but it makes no reference to the Target This
needs to be modified when the design is completed.
6
Some minor details are still being worked on.
References to the MICE Technical Notes will be
moved to the TRD for consistency reason
7
Depending on whether we adopt a one piece solid
sheet, or a 3-piece sheeting arrangement for the
shield, it may need revising. In any case the
support design has all changed since. It will
require a fair amount of revising
8
(No Transcript)
9
(No Transcript)
10
So how does the scheme work?
11
(No Transcript)
12
(No Transcript)
13
(No Transcript)
14
(No Transcript)
15
(No Transcript)
16
(No Transcript)
17
(No Transcript)
18
(No Transcript)
19
(No Transcript)
20
(No Transcript)
21

• The audit format is not without its drawbacks
• It forces people to re-format their write-up in
  line with the format set out in the TRD document
  this takes longer time to do compared with
  writing up a short note adequate for a design
  justification
• The existing format is the best way to
  ensure consistency and quality control. The
  alternative would create paperwork that is
  difficult to manage and almost impossible to
  assemble

22

• The audit format is not without its drawbacks
• It forces people to re-format their write-up in
  line with the format set out in the TRD document
  this takes longer time to do compared with
  writing up a short note adequate for a design
  justification
• It requires constant update of the TRD section(s)
  to reflect any modification or additions made
  subsequently
• This requires a lot of Paul Drumms time. Unless
  we can come up with a better way of handling
  this, we may have to live with this for the time
  being

23

• The audit format is not without its drawbacks
• It forces people to re-format their write-up in
  line with the format set out in the TRD document
  this takes longer time to do compared with
  writing up a short note adequate for a design
  justification
• It requires constant update of the TRD section(s)
  to reflect any modification or additions made
  subsequently
• It requires book marking the TRD section and
  hyperlinking the reference marks to locate the
  right section
• Hopefully the majority of this is a one-off
  event. We are getting better, and quicker, in
  doing this. However we would be happy to receive
  suggestion / advice on how to improve this.

24

• The audit format is not without its drawbacks
• It forces people to re-format their write-up in
  line with the format set out in the TRD document
  this takes longer time to do compared with
  writing up a short note adequate for a design
  justification
• It requires constant update of the TRD section(s)
  to reflect any modification or additions made
  subsequently
• It requires book marking the TRD section and
  hyperlinking the reference marks to locate the
  right section
• Because the hyperlinks refer to only one section
  at a time, it doesnt provide a full view of the
  complete write-up and therefore makes the review
  somewhat difficult and clumsy.
• We acknowledge this drawback and would advice
  that a hard copy of the TRD document be used
  during the review.

25
Where do we go from here? Phase 1 delivery is due
at the beginning of April 2007 some 20 months
away I am concerned that we have not done as much
as we would have liked I blame this on the
following 20 months seem a long time to go and
this may give people the impression that this is
not a priority item
26
(No Transcript)
27
Where do we go from here? Phase 1 delivery is due
at the beginning of April 2007 some 20 months
away I am concerned that we have not done as much
as we would have liked I blame this on the
following 20 months seem a long time to go and
this may give people the impression that this is
not a priority item The approach is somewhat new
and needs time to get used to Lack of enthusiasm
from our component group leaders who, including
myself, have the habit of leaving the design
write up to the end. For this reason, we
must Work out a realistic schedule with
milestone dates that meets MICE delivery
requirement To have closer contact (face to
face) with the component group leaders and lead
them through the mechanics of doing the audit If
that fails..Scream use the whip, if it needs
to!
28
That is not what I meant by WHIPPING!
29
(No Transcript)
30
Hydrogen system RD Schedule

• Outline Schedule
• WP1 Initial design May August 05
• with Review in September 05
• WP2 Detailed design and procurement Aug 05 Feb
  06
• WP3 Installation and commissioning Jan April
  06
• WP4 Test Programme June Oct 06

31
Support structure Layout and sequences
Add spacer
32
Hydrogen system RD Schedule

• Outline Schedule
• WP1 Initial design May August 05
• with Review in September 05
• WP2 Detailed design and procurement Aug 05 Feb
  06
• WP3 Installation and commissioning Jan April
  06
• WP4 Test Programme June Oct 06