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 *

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 Rehearsal Support Wing Design & Safety Group Agree Procedure We are here! Document Review Review FINAL Document Audit Operate RAL Review RAL Agree when ready From Document... to Presentation by Video? Task Leader Task Members Task Leader Task Members Task Leader Task Members Invitees? Review Advice? 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: 1beam & its infrastructure 2A, 2B R&D on hydrogen/absorber 2CR&D on RF (at DL) 5ADetectors for phase 1 Phase 2: 3 is an extension of 1 4 would be consumed in others 5B expands 5A 6Cooling Channel 2A 2B 2C A5A 5B5B 4

12 Timescales Phase 1 delivered by end March –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 #PackageSub-TaskReview Stage ConceptReady for Final Design… 1beam & related infrastructure Engineering; Radiation; Physics design 2R&DHydrogen (AFC module) RF 3DetectorsSpectrometer solenoid & SciFi ToF, Ckov 4Phase 2 infrastructureExpands 1 5Phase 2 Cooling ChannelLinked to 2 6Controls & 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 or Cryogenic 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 …. …. …. June 2005…..

21