MICE Collaboration Meeting Frascati 26 – 29 June 2005 Work Group report On Design & Safety Review

Progress summary on some PID related components and Infrastructures

1046 mm mm z= mm End Coil 120 mm mm mm 7.6 mm mm Diffuser position (relative to the centre of MICE in stage VI). Q9 Diffuser 17-Jan mm 250mm Iron Shield Patch panel 163mm -6173mm Courtesy of Paul Drumm

Clearance envelop for the diffuser assembly approx. 150 mm 95 mm Tracker solenoid The space constraint & positioning requirement for the diffuser Patch panel Iron shield Clearance gap = 250mm Diffuser envelop when fully withdrawn 163 mm from flange face

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

Knife-edge flange fixed to the Tracker Solenoid cover flange

The Knife edge flange mounted on the top of the patch panel cover plate The original arrangement

3D exploded view

Questions raised during the parallel session were:- Should the top hat for the patch panel require a window?

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

Well if they can change 4 wheels in 8 seconds, I don’t see why we can not change 1 diffuser in 8 MINUTES! We will employ quick release clamping mechanism if its needs be!

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?

The Iron Shield support system

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

The revised design allows the shield to be suspended to the cryostat vessel via a set of “links and brackets”

A support lug is welded onto the flange cover plate for connection to the 2 nd link-bar 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 These 2 lugs are welded directly to the iron shield The 1 st and 2 nd 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.

Lifting of Iron Shield by mobile lifting unit Or Overhead Crane A fork lift truck, e.g.

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. Link Blocks (3 off) for positional fixing & registration Link Bars (2-off)

The Iron Shield support is clear of the space envelop required by the Patch Panel

An exploded view

Vessel support position on both sides FEA calculation carried out to ensure integrity of tracker vessel not affected

Maximum deflection at the support bracket is 0.43mm in Z direction

Max. realistic stress on vessel is about 160 MPa at the junction of the bracket and the vessel

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

The PID support re-design

Iron Shield suspended off the tracker solenoid cryostat The revised PID support structure TOF 2 Cherenkov 2 EMCalorimeter PID support can slide in and out of normal anchor position in both X & Z directions X Y Z

Elevation view of the support structure End view of the support structure The PID support Structure

Support details at the Cherenkov 2 Support is via two 125 x 125 x 10 C-Channels bolted on existing Cherenkov outer frame Shim pack to adjust the final height

Support arrangement for the TOF2 Seating plate is via a 10mm thick plate welded to the end of the C-channel TOF support legs: 50 x 50 x 4mm thick C- channel

CKOV2 drawing received from Ghislain in Feb,2005 TOF2 drawing received from Maurizio in Feb, 2005

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;

Iron Shield suspended off the tracker solenoid cryostat The revised PID support structure TOF 2 Cherenkov 2 EMCalorimeter PID support can slide in and out of normal anchor position in both X & Z directions X Y Z

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

Infrastructures

Support structure – Rail-mounting concept

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 ? MICE support structure - Specification

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

Issues raised at the Parallel session Do we need a second Iron Shield during the Stage II testing?

Support structure – Layout and sequences Add spacer

The Design & Safety Review

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

Beamline & Targets; Fibre Tracker; Tracker solenoid; Magnetic Shield; Cherenkov 1; Cherenkov 2; TOF 1 & 2; EMCalorimeter; Diffuser; 4 groups of Infrastructure items, one of which is the Hydrogen system; Hydrogen system R&D; Absorber R&D RF R&D This could be accessed from the MICE web page via the “Speakers Bureau”

The audit sheets that have been returned to me so far

…but it makes no reference to the Target … This needs to be modified when the design is completed.

Some minor details are still being worked on. References to the MICE Technical Notes will be moved to the TRD for consistency reason

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

So how does the scheme work?

The audit format is not without its drawbacks 1.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

The audit format is not without its drawbacks 1.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; 2.It requires constant update of the TRD section(s) to reflect any modification or additions made subsequently; This requires a lot of Paul Drumm’s time. However this is now largely done. It makes the job of any future changes a lot easier to handle

The audit format is not without its drawbacks 1.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; 2.It requires constant update of the TRD section(s) to reflect any modification or additions made subsequently; 3.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.

The audit format is not without its drawbacks 1.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; 2.It requires constant update of the TRD section(s) to reflect any modification or additions made subsequently; 3.It requires book marking the TRD section and hyperlinking the reference marks to locate the right section; 4.Because the hyperlinks refer to only one section at a time, it doesn’t 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.

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;

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

* Outline designs Preliminary Assessments Proposal for final choice Detailed design Manufacture and installation Permission to operate RAL Review Failure Modes Stress Calculations Interlocks & Operational Procedures Contingency Plans Pressure 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 Reviews MICE Review + + Operation Readiness Review -- ISIS Safety Officer MICE is somewhere here! Task List Target Beamline ToF Stations Cherenkov Stations Calorimeters Spectrometers  Solenoid + Trackers Hall Layout R&D: Hydrogen & Absorber DL

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 : 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

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

● Prior review – Either before commencing build or – During/after build with increased risk ! ● Judgement call ● Readiness review – Will permit operation

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!

That is not what I meant by WHIPPING!