1

MICE Collaboration meeting at Berkeley

9 – 12 February 2005

Integrated Design & Safety Review

Presented by

Wing Lau & Paul Drumm

2

Why?

• Goal: Ultimate (CCLRC defined)Safety & Design Review

– How do we get there?• We need a Process

– What is needed?• Full Safety & Design assessment

– How do we ensure success?• Assessment within MICE but outside of the working groups

• Propose Design & Safety Working Group– Based on group involved in AFCSWG¹– Expanded to cover all MICE – in a timely manner

¹ but with fewer letters – easier to repeat!

3

AFCSWG – as was

• Original Concept for Absorber and Hydrogen System

• Process* heavy for most of MICE

• Ultimate goal stands

Outline designs

Preliminary Assessments

Proposal for final choice

Detailed design

Manufacture and installation

Permission to operate

RAL Defined Review

Failure ModesStress CalculationsInterlocks &Operational ProceduresContingency PlansPressure Vessel &ATEX regulations….

Hazard and Operability Assessment

Working Group

SequenceDocuments Required

MICE Hydrogen Safety Review Procedure

OK for detailed design

OK to Manufacture

Preliminary Hazard and Operability Assessments

ISIS Safety Officer

Reviews

Panel Review

+

+

*

4

Morph to D&SWG…

• Role of existing working groups unchanged• Character and role of the “review panel” is

different:– Internal “audit” process

• unless D&SWG advises that an independent review is needed (matter of risk & competence within MICE)

– D&SWG guides documentation preparation through a series of audits

– D&SWG to assess the documentation• Not the same as a review (less overhead)

– Informs TB & EB on readiness for final review

5

Process

Detail Design & Safety…

Develop Concepts & Design, Prepare documentation

fit for purpose Documents ok

Acceptance

Pre-manufacture

Manufacture & Install

RehearsalSupport

Wing Design & Safety Group

Agree ProcedureWe are here!

Document Review

Review

FINALDocument

Audit

Operate

RAL Review

RAL

Agree when ready

Agree when ready

From Document... toPresentation by Video?

Task LeaderTask Members

Task LeaderTask MembersTask Leader

Task Members

Invitees?Review

Advice?

Audit & Advise

Audit & Advise

6

Phase 1 Time Scales

• Beam Line needs to be in place end of 2006– Complete beam line review by end 2005– Radiation shielding is a more delicate matter– Target is a potential risk to ISIS operations– Beam Line is (probably low risk)

• ISIS/EID engineering staff• Following established & proven practices

• Spectrometer & Tracker– Low risk

• R&D activities– Medium - Potentially High – design to achieve Low Risk

7

Composition of the Integrated Design & Safety Review group • Engineering:

– Wing Lau                     Convenor– Steve Virostek

• Cooling Channel:– Mike Zisman

• Magnets & Absorber:– Elwyn Baynham– Mike Green

• Integration:– Yury Ivanyushenkov

• Detectors & Electronics:– Alan Bross

• Interlocks:– “Tom Bradshaw”

8

• The above represent a core group whose expertise spreads across a number of disciplines. In order to cover all aspects of MICE, the group can consider temporary expansion of the group membership to reflect the current focus. 

• It is suggested that this group meets as part of the existing AFC series of meetings to avoid meeting escalation. It is up to the Convenor to initiate meetings of one or other of the groups.

What are the terms of reference for this group?

9

Scope of the group

The group should consider the entire design of MICE, including the beamline & target, on a schedule that takes account of the MICE time line and reflects the level of maturity in the work.

Charge to the group

The remit of the group is to ensure that

Sufficient documentary design detail and analysis such that an assessment of design of components against appropriate engineering design rules can be made.

Similarly for components in the integrated environment of MICE – this might examine interfaces, holding of forces, commonalities, integrated vacuum systems etc

a safety & hazard assessment of the components in the operational phase is made which identifies procedures, risks, consequences, fault conditions etc

10

It is not the group’s responsibility to do the work, but rather to

Ensure that it is done

That it is done to a sufficient standard

That it is appropriate to MICE (fit for purpose)

11

WBS & Packaging…

Phase 1:1 beam & its infrastructure2A, 2B R&D on hydrogen/absorber2C R&D on RF (at DL)5A Detectors for phase 1

Phase 2:3 is an extension of 14 would be consumed in others5B expands 5A6 Cooling Channel

2A

2B

2C

1

3

6

5A 5

B

4

12

Timescales

Phase 1 delivered by end March 2007.– Beam & beam infrastructure– Phase 1 Detectors– Hydrogen system R&D– RF power R&D

It is for this reason that the following task matrix was set up to prioritise our work

13

Task Matrix

# Package Sub-Task Review Stage

Concept Ready for Final Design …

1 beam & related infrastructure

Engineering;

Radiation;

Physics design

2 R&D Hydrogen (AFC module)

RF

3 Detectors Spectrometer solenoid & SciFi

ToF, Ckov

4 Phase 2 infrastructure Expands 1

5 Phase 2 Cooling Channel Linked to 2

6 Controls & Monitoring

14

Our approach

We will carry out this review (the conceptual review) in 2 steps:

In step 1, a series of audits will aim to make sure that there is sufficient documentary evidence that the design and the safety aspects of the equipment have been fulfilled. This is done by way of a series of AUDITs. A check list has been prepared to aide this process;

Having gone through the AUDIT process to ensure that the documentary evidence is all there, the second step will REVIEW the document contents to assess whether the design is fit for the purpose with convincing arguments, and that all the Safety issues have been properly addressed.

We must take cognisance of the fact that safety needs to know about design and design needs to take account of safety issues. The two must go hand in hand!

15

The Design Audit

The audit check list allows us to collect documentary evidence to show that the information is available.

In most components the conceptual design “review” is a continuous process which is carried out through regular group meetings, video conferences, discussions and collaboration meetings: critical items should have special care (as was the case for the AFC Module) .

The TRD (Technical Reference Document) should be the main source of information, and where the design concepts and parameters are held. Where necessary – e.g. to address particular points - Technical Notes to which the check list can refer can be produced as addenda to the TRD.

16

The Design Audit

The questions that required addressing in the design review are based on the what the reviews want to see in a design document, i.e. the punch lines:

What is it?What is in it?What does it do?What does it look like?How good has it got to be?Does it works?How do we know it works?Do we know how to use it?What if it goes wrong?How will it affect safety?Are there any other Issue?

17

The Design Audit

The Design audit framework is constructed with the following sub-headings to respond to those punch lines:

Functionality of the subsystem Physics Engineering

Specification & Design parameters Are these well defined Is space envelop and interface well defined

Where is the documentation? Does it exist and where is it in the TRD etc.

Engineering status – what is still required? Analysis CAD etc

Other design related issues

18

The Safety Audit

For the same subsystems from the WBS the Safety Audit check list is formulated based on the following remit:

Identify generic and specific safety issues and hazards for the subsystem.

Generic safety issues would typically be associated with

Radiation;Stray magnet field orCryogenic system etc….

Define operational modes and failure modes

Identify the consequences of failure

Identify the Physics & Engineering impact of a safe design

Identify the Applicable Design Codes

19

Structure of the Design & Safety Audit format

The proposed framework gives us a guideline on how to conduct the design & safety audits;

While the punch lines are more or less the same across all the systems and sub-systems, details of the sub-headings could vary from system to system. The audit form will need to be adjusted to take into that account.

EXCEL sheets

20

Design & Safety audit schedule:

items / deliverables

Beamline

Related infrastructures

R &D programmes including:

Hydrogen systems

RF

Detectors including

Spectrometer solenoid, the tracker Scifi

TOFs, Cherenkovs & EmCalorimeters

Time line….Oct 2005

….Oct 2005

….

….

….…. June 2005

…..…..

21