MICE%20Collaboration%20Meeting

1
MICE Collaboration Meeting Frascati 26 29 June
2005 Work Group report On Design Safety
Review
2
Progress summary on some PID related components
and Infrastructures
3
(No Transcript)
4
(No Transcript)
5
Insertion of diffuser assembly caused the main
arm to be rotated, thereby extending the arm
mechanism
See animation in the next 9 pages on how this
works
6
Knife-edge flange fixed to the Tracker Solenoid
cover flange
7
(No Transcript)
8
(No Transcript)
9
(No Transcript)
10
(No Transcript)
11
(No Transcript)
12
(No Transcript)
13
(No Transcript)
14
(No Transcript)
15
The original arrangement
The Knife edge flange mounted on the top of the
patch panel cover plate
16
3D exploded view
17
(No Transcript)
18
Questions raised during the parallel session
were- Should the top hat for the patch panel
require a window?
19
Questions raised during the parallel session
were- Should the top hat for the patch panel
require a window? The changing operation of the
Lead diffuser needs to be completed in the
shortest possible time within 15 to 20 minutes
20
Well if they can change 4 wheels in 8 seconds, I
dont see why we can not change 1 diffuser in 8
MINUTES! We will employ quick release clamping
mechanism if its needs be!
21
Questions raised during the parallel session
were- Should the top hat for the patch panel
require a window? The changing operation of the
Lead diffuser needs to be completed in the
shortest possible time within 15 to 20
minutes Should the lead plate be segmented?
22
The Iron Shield support system
23
The existing design has the iron shield sitting
on a frame structure before it is bolted to the
Tracker solenoid cover plate via a set of spacers
24
(No Transcript)
25
The revised design allows the shield to be
suspended to the cryostat vessel via a set of
links and brackets
26
These 2 lugs are welded directly to the iron
shield
Main hanging bracket is welded on a patch plate
(saddle) of 15mm thick by 40 degree wide which is
in turn welded on the top of the tracker solenoid
vessel
A support lug is welded onto the flange cover
plate for connection to the 2nd link-bar
The 1st and 2nd link bars (red blue in diagram)
are the main supporting structure for the iron
shield. The link bars are free to rotate at both
ends. This allows finer adjustment to be made to
achieve the positional tolerance needed.
27
Lifting of Iron Shield by mobile lifting unit
Overhead Crane
Or
A fork lift truck, e.g.
28
Link Bars (2-off)
Link Blocks (3 off) for positional fixing
registration
Once suspended, a further set of link blocks will
be machined insitu. The shield will be connected
and dowelled into the required positional
precision level.
29
The Iron Shield support is clear of the space
envelop required by the Patch Panel
30
An exploded view
31
FEA calculation carried out to ensure integrity
of tracker vessel not affected
Vessel support position on both sides
32
Maximum deflection at the support bracket is
0.43mm in Z direction
33
Max. realistic stress on vessel is about 160 MPa
at the junction of the bracket and the vessel
34
Issues raised in the parallel session Proposed
Iron Shield attachment system were generally
acceptable Needs to see if the link blocks could
be aligned with the Cold Mass support positions
of the Tracker magnets We need to check with IC
to make sure that this does not clash with the
Patch Panel space envelop
35
The PID support re-design
36
(No Transcript)
37
(No Transcript)
38
(No Transcript)
39
(No Transcript)
40
(No Transcript)
41
(No Transcript)
42
(No Transcript)
43
Issues raised during the parallel session One
member pair of the support need repositioning to
allow clear access for the removal of the
Cherenkov tubes, otherwise the proposed design
was generally accepted
44
(No Transcript)
45
Issues raised during the parallel session One
member pair of the support need repositioning to
allow clear access for the removal of the
Cherenkov tubes, otherwise the proposed design
was generally accepted Needs to add ancillary
support structures, such as cable support etc
This will be incorporated into the design as
soon as we have received the change requests from
the PID project leaders The support will be
modified to incorporate the rail system that is
being looked at by RAL engineers
46
Infrastructures
47
Support structure Rail-mounting concept
48
MICE support structure - Specification

• Requirements/specification
• - to move (all) MICE modules out the beam (to
  the side direction) for various MICE stages
• Accuracy/tolerances
• - along the beam /- 1 mm
• - across the beam /- 1 mm
• Adjustment
• - adjustment possibility is required.
• Locking mechanism
• - required.
• Loads
• - max load is 6.65 tonnes.
• Force transfer function
• - gravity force to the floor
• - module-to-module axial force to the floor ?

49
MICE support structure Next steps

• Revise support structure requirements/specs for
  full MICE
• - include and analyze requirements of access
  to every module
• ( collect information from all technical
  supervisors)
• Suggest support structure for Stage 2
• (is it different from the one for complete MICE
  ?)
• Discuss revised version of support structure at
  RAL meeting

50
Issues raised at the Parallel session Do we need
a second Iron Shield during the Stage II testing?
51
Support structure Layout and sequences
Add spacer
52
The Design Safety Review
53
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 items
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
54
This could be accessed from the MICE web page via
the Speakers Bureau
55
The audit sheets that have been returned to me so
far
56
but it makes no reference to the Target This
needs to be modified when the design is completed.
57
Some minor details are still being worked on.
References to the MICE Technical Notes will be
moved to the TRD for consistency reason
58
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
59
(No Transcript)
60
(No Transcript)
61
So how does the scheme work?
62
(No Transcript)
63
(No Transcript)
64
(No Transcript)
65
(No Transcript)
66
(No Transcript)
67
(No Transcript)
68
(No Transcript)
69
(No Transcript)
70
(No Transcript)
71

• 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

72

• 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.
  However this is now largely done. It makes the
  job of any future changes a lot easier to handle

73

• 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.

74

• 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.

75
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 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. 20 months seem a long time to go and
this may give people the impression that this is
not a priority item
76
(No Transcript)
77
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 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. 20 months seem a long time to go and
this may give people the impression that this is
not a priority item For this reason, we
must Work out a realistic schedule with
milestone dates that meets MICE delivery
requirement
78
Task List TargetBeamlineToF StationsCherenkov
StationsCalorimetersSpectrometers? Solenoid
Trackers Hall Layout RD Hydrogen Absorber
RF _at_ DL
79
Task time-line 2005 Introduce decay solenoid
in hall - testing Modifications to solenoid
stand Installation of a hydrogen test area in
hall 5.2 tests Late 2005 S7 swap test target
few pulses at start-up 2007 2006 Installation of
cryo-system for decay solenoid Shutdown
2006 install shielding install stands etc in
synchrotron Late 2006 Rail system, beam line
stands, b-l elements 2007 Spring 2007 install
detectors first beam Late 2007 install
spectrometer
Prior design hazard safety review
Operational readiness review
Full layout infrastructure incl. PID
80

• Time scales
• Permissible to submit prior reviews at any time
• Better to coordinate (groups of related things)
• Depending on scale of risk
• -- review can be internal
• ISIS engineer / safety group / RPA
• -- e.g. Synchrotron target
• -- MICE should review fit for purpose
• -- ISIS will review acceptability
• -- or review will be external
• Hydrogen system ISIS external industrial
  SNS.
• Three months notice
• Bookmark October 05 for Hydrogen system

81
? Prior review Either before commencing build
or During/after build with increased risk ! ?
Judgement call ? Readiness review Will permit
operation
82
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 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. 20 months seem a long time to go and
this may give people the impression that this is
not a priority item 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!
83
That is not what I meant by WHIPPING!