Project Design Review Plan - INDICO-FNAL (Indico)
DOCPROPERTY Project \* MERGEFORMAT PIP-II MEBT Kicker Final Design Review ReportDocument number: ED0007959Document ApprovalName: Matt SlabaughOrg: AD/ENG/MSD/PROCContact: slabaugh@Role: Committee MemberDate:Name: Ed CullertonOrg: AD/ENG/RF/LLRFContact: ecullert@Role: Committee MemberName: Chris JensenOrg: AD/ENG/EESDContact: ccjensen@Role: Committee ChairName:Org:Contact:Role: Committee MemberName:Org:Contact:Role: Committee ChairApprovals managed via Fermilab Teamcenter Workflows.Non-Teamcenter Users will provide approvals via e-mails recorded in Teamcenter.Revision HistoryRevisionDate ReleaseOriginator:Role:Description of Change-Chris JensenCommittee ChairInitial releaseRevision control is managed via Fermilab Teamcenter Workflows.Table of Contents TOC \o "1-1" \h \z \u 1.Introduction PAGEREF _Toc525218177 \h 42.Review Agenda PAGEREF _Toc525218178 \h 43.Review Charge Statement PAGEREF _Toc525218179 \h 64.Reference Documents PAGEREF _Toc525218180 \h 75.Findings PAGEREF _Toc525218181 \h ments PAGEREF _Toc525218182 \h 87.Recommendations PAGEREF _Toc525218183 \h 108.Answers to charge questions PAGEREF _Toc525218184 \h 10IntroductionThe Medium Energy Beam Transport (MEBT) chopping system creates the appropriate bunch pattern for injection into the Booster. It is composed of two deflecting structures (a.k.a. kickers) working synchronously and a high-power absorber. This PIP-II MEBT Kicker Final Design Review is charged to assess the robustness of the design, for which a prototype was successfully tested with beam at the PIP-II Injector Test Facility (PIP2IT). The expected outcome of the review is the recommendation to proceed with the fabrication of two complete kickers, which will be installed on the PIP2IT beam line to demonstrate the chopping scheme at nominal beam parameters for PIP-II.In the context of this review, a “kicker assembly” is defined as the system formed by the mechanical structure fitted with the driver electronics. The “kicker system” refers to two “kicker assemblies” working together synchronously to apply the proper deflection to the beam. The kicker’s vacuum chamber, active elements (i.e. helices) and protection electrodes are referred to as the mechanical structure in order to differentiate with the elements that composed the driver electronics.The committee heard presentations regarding the design and testing already completed for the MEBT kicker assembly. A great deal of work has already gone into making this part of the PIP-II project a success.Review AgendaMEBT Kicker Final Design Review AgendaLocation:Huddle Conference RoomDate:Thursday. August 2, 2018Time:Indico Site:Participants:13:00-17:00 Prostlprost@AD/PIP-II DPTRole: Coordinator, PresenterChris Jensenccjensen@AD/ENG/EESDRole: ChairMatt Slabaughslabaugh@AD/ENG/MSD/PROCRole: ReviewerEd Cullertonecullert@AD/ENG/RF/LLRFRole: ReviewerAlex Chenalexchen@AD/ENG/MSD/PROJENGRole: PresenterGreg Saewertsaewert@AD/ENG/EESDRole: PresenterDing Sunding@AD/ENG/RF/HLRF_SRFRole: PresenterAlexander Shemyakinshenyakin@AD/PIP-II DPTRole: PresenterTim Hamerlahamerla@AD/ENG/MSD/CADRole: CAD SupportAgenda details:Introduction (Lionel Prost)20’Context for the reviewCharge and Scope of the reviewAgenda for the reviewOrganizational structure and teamQuick recap of the kickers development historyMEBT kickers requirementsRecent scope reduction50-Ohm kicker design (Ding Sun)30’SpecificationsFabrication of prototypeTest resultsLow power (RF) testsHigh power tests (thermal/vacuum)200-Ohm kicker electromagnetic design (Greg Saewert)45’Requirements overview and system design approachChallengesDesign detailsElectrical performanceIssues to be addressed200-Ohm kicker mechanical design (Alex Chen)45’Specification & requirementMechanical design overviewAnalyses & tests with the prototypeInterfaces (Lionel Prost)10’Kickers characterization with beam at PIP2IT (Sasha Shemyakin)20’RequirementsSetup and measurements procedure50-Ohm kicker performance measurements200-Ohm kicker performance measurementsWrap-up (Lionel Prost)10’“Alternatives” analysis200-Ohm kicker as the baseline for the PIP-II chopping systemCostScheduleCloseout (Chris Jensen – Review Chair)Review Charge StatementFor the Final Design Review of the MEBT Kicker, we would like the committee to comment on the robustness of the 200-Ohm kicker design for PIP-II taking into account the fact that the initial requirements, arbitrary bunch pattern generation with CW beam delivered by the RFQ, have been reduced in scope – bucket-to-bucket Booster injection pattern with 1.1% beam duty factor upstream.More specifically, we would like the committee to consider the following questions:Are the designs mature and technically sound to satisfy design specifications?The mechanical structure (e.g.: vacuum chamber, helices) and the driver electronics may be addressed separatelyDo the measurements appropriately show that the 200-Ohm kicker and kicker driver meet the basic performance requirements?RF, thermal, vacuum, Machine Protection, beamAre the mechanical and RF designs sound for providing long-term operation?Have installation issues been adequately addressed?Was maintenance/servicing of the units taken into account appropriately?Have all the major interfaces been identified and incorporated into the design?Are all necessary design specifications, requirements and interface documents complete or near completion?Have the critical documents (e.g. FRS, some key drawings) reviewed, approved and released?Is the design team organized and staffed to successfully complete the project?Has a succession plan been identified?Have all of the major risks been identified and managed?Are procurements appropriately planned?Is the development of associated drawing packages or schematics (electrical) sufficiently mature? What % of the total number of drawings/schematics to be generated is approved and released?Is the cost and schedule reasonable to achieve the planned scope?This is a ‘reasonableness’ assessment by technical experts, not a detailed cost/schedule reviewAre all related ES&H aspects being properly addressed?If applicable, have all the previous design review action items/comments been addressed?Have lessons learned been addressed?Are there any other issues that have been identified and need to be addressed?Where shortcomings of the prototype are identified by the presenter, is the correction/upgrade path likely to succeed within the timeframe of 6 months to a year?Is the design sufficiently mature so as to allow Final Design Review approval?From this review, we seek from the Review Committee the recommendation to proceed with the fabrication of two 200-Ohm kicker systems.The Review Committee is kindly asked to submit a Final Design Review Report no later than 4 weeks after the conclusion of the review. A Review Report template will be provided.Reference Documents1PIP-II MEBT Kicker System Functional Requirements Specification (TC# ED0001305, Rev A)2PIP-II MEBT Kicker Assembly Technical Requirements Specification (TC# ED0008094)3PIP-II MEBT Kicker Mechanical Structure Technical Requirements Specification (TC# ED0002305)4MEBT 200 Ohm Chopper Assy, MARK 2 (TC# F10045400-A) and sub-assemblies within5PIP-II MEBT Kicker FDR – Alternative Analysis (TC# ED0007959)6Driver Drawings and Procedures List (TC# ED0007959)7Helix Dispersion Compensation Procedure (draft) (TC# ED0007959)8Helix Impedance Measurement Procedure (draft) (TC# ED0007959)9Helix Propagation Time Measurement Procedure (draft) (TC# ED0007959)10PIP-II MEBT Kicker Risk Analysis (TC# ED0008143)11PIP-II MEBT 200-Ohm Kicker Driver Risk Analysis (TC# ED0006652)Findings50-Ohm Kicker Design (D. Sun)F1) A great deal of design and testing went into this structure. It has broad band response and meets the requirements set forward by the designer and the requirements.200-Ohm Kicker Electromagnetic Design (G. Saewert)F2) Great progress was made on the power supply and structure. This power supply was not even possible several years ago and PIP II R&D and a LDRD are responsible for there even being a single solution to this difficult problemF3) Several prototypes have been built using different techniques. The current prototype with photonics was able to go to higher voltage, and hence higher power, since the individual devices are on separate pc boards. This compromised the electrical performance. The previous prototype had good electrical response, but higher temperature drift and did not use the photonics.F4) The structure had capacitive tuning elements added to it to reduce dispersion through the structure and improve pulse response. The structure is technically sound.200-Ohm Kicker Mechanical Design (A. Chen)F5) The prototype meets the electrical, thermal and vacuum requirements as far as they have been tested.F6) There appears to be adequate fixturing for assembly of the basic helix structure.F7) Procurement of these components appears to be low risk.Kicker Characterization with Beam at PIP2IT (A. Shemyakin)F8) Analysis of beam operation with kick 1 / pass 1 operation was presented.F9) Measurements of the 50-Ohm structure were not understood as far as strength. There was more than 10% discrepancy between calculation and measurement.F10) The strength of the 200-Ohm structure was shown to be within a few percent of the design calculations.Interface Documents (L. Prost)F11) This topic was shown briefly. The timing pulses in particular were called out as an interface requirement along with general status and control.Alternative Analysis / Cost & Schedule (L. Prost)F12) The tradeoffs between the two different kicker geometries and power supply styles was presented.F13) The cost of a pulser for the 50-Ohm proposal is much greater than the cost of a pulser for the 200-Ohm ments50-Ohm Kicker Design (D. Sun)C1) Can any of the design knowledge gained for the 50Ohm kicker structure be used in the 200Ohm kicker structure?200-Ohm Kicker Electromagnetic Design (G. Saewert)C2) An engineering analysis of why the tuning elements produce a desired effect was not provided.C3) An engineering plan for driver replacement is needed.C4) Consider interlocking the driver electronics cover with the high voltage power supply.200-Ohm Kicker Mechanical Design (A. Chen)C5) We did not see any information on maintenance.C6) Were RGA scans done during beam operation? Could they be?C7) Capacitive coupling elements are not shown on the mechanical assembly and their attachment was done using a combined electromechanical procedure.C8) Soldering of the capacitive coupling elements on the helix should be avoided for cleanliness and potential damage to epoxy.C9) What happens if the epoxy on the helix is damaged? Does the laser welding or soldering heat the epoxy beyond its design limit?C10) Documentation for kicker stand and mating of pulser to kicker should be completed.C11) Perform thermal analysis with the kicker powered and under vacuum, but without water cooling to confirm no water flow interlock is required.Kicker Characterization with Beam at PIP2IT (A. Shemyakin)C12) An eye diagram measurement would clearly identify if the system met the pulse timing requirements.C13) The kick 1 / pass 1 waveform has a different "0" voltage waveform than a kick 1 / pass 2 or kick 2 / pass 1. Do the two pass bunches in the kick 1 pass 2 waveform get close enough to the same kick? Does the single pass bunch get a kick close enough kick 1 / pass 1 kick? These all contribute to emittance growth and no analysis was presented.Interface Documents (L. Prost)C14) TRS need update to OFF specification.C15) Have not seen an ICD document (Interface control Document) or ICS (Interface Control Specification)C16) FRS requirement # F-121.4.02.02.01.XX-010 - Is phase velocity match to beam velocity 1% requirement still valid? We heard statements during the review that this didn't matter so much.C17) FRS requirement # F-121.4.02.02.01.XX-014 - Is the power supply remotely controlled? (On/Off, Enable/Disable, Voltage setting).C18) FRS requirement # F-121.4.02.02.01.XX-015 - Do the power supply send a status signal to the control system?C19) FRS requirement # F-121.4.02.02.01.XX-016 - Is there a fault indictor to the control system.C20) FRS requirement # F-121.4.02.02.01.XX-017 - Does the kicker have a 'ready ' signal for MPS.C21) FRS requirement # F-121.4.02.02.01.XX-018 - Is the driver core unit available over Ethernet for troubleshooting?C22) What other troubleshooting information can you provide for remote diagnosis (i.e., ACNET signals/waveforms, load/ source temp, power Supply ON/OFF, etc.)C23) Is interface to Machine protection defined? FRS requires plate signals to machine protection.Alternative Analysis / Cost & Schedule (L. Prost)C24) Modification of the 200-Ohm pulser design to be capable of driving 50 Ohms would make the 50-Ohm structure worthy of further effort.Recommendations R1) Update the kicker TRS document (ED0008094) to be consistent with the current understanding of voltage stability and other requirements.R2) Develop a credible plan for meeting the driver electronics cooling and electrical requirements, including a measurement of the structure, for expected operation with some margin.R3) Review and approve the Engineering Risk Assessment for both the mechanical and electrical components with both engineering and management input.R4) Documentation for cleaning, handling, QC and Hazard Analysis for the mechanical assembly needs to be completed.Answers to charge questionsQ1. Are the designs mature and technically sound to satisfy design specifications?A1. The electromagnetic design has not met all specifications simultaneously. The mechanical design is mature and satisfies the design specifications. Consider building the next version of the chopper on a best effort basis and adding either future risk or opportunity. There are schedule constraints for further PIP II-IT testing that require a functioning chopper while the design does not appear to be final for PIP II.Q2. Do the measurements appropriately show that the 200-Ohm kicker and kicker driver meet the basic performance requirements?A2. It was not clearly demonstrated that the ON/OFF time electric field level met a specification for a set of arbitrary waveforms however this specification was said to be tighter than required.Q3. Have installation issues been adequately addressed?A3. Sufficient to continue work.Q4. Have all the major interfaces been identified and incorporated into the design?A4. Major interfaces have been identified.Q5. Are all necessary design specifications, requirements and interface documents complete or near completion?A5. Near completion.Q6. Is the design team organized and staffed to successfully complete the project?A6. Yes.Q7. Have all of the major risks been identified and managed?A7. No. The risk assessments should be reviewed and approved by the appropriate department head, lead engineer and project management team.Q8. Are procurements appropriately planned?A8. Yes.Q9. Is the development of associated drawing packages or schematics (electrical) sufficiently mature?A9. The electrical drawings were not presented, the mechanical drawings are sufficiently mature.Q10. Is the cost and schedule reasonable to achieve the planned scope?A10. Yes. Review M&S and manpower estimates with appropriate department head, lead engineer and project management team.Q11. Are all related ES&H aspects being properly addressed?A11. In process. There is a question about some substances for the mechanical assembly that require a Hazard Analysis. A LOTO procedure for the system may also be needed (pending completion of risk analysis).Q12. Have previous design review items been addressed?A12. No previous reviews on this topic were presented.Q13. Have lessons learned been addressed?A13. Nothing was presented.Q14. Are there any other issues that have been identified and need to be addressed? Were shortcomings of the prototype identified by the presenter, is the correction/upgrade path likely to succeed in 6 months to a year?A14. Several shortcomings were presented to the team.Q15. Is the design sufficiently mature so as to allow Final Design Review approval?A15. The structure is mature and can proceed. There are still unanswered questions regarding the pulser (see recommendation R2) ................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related searches
- project quality management plan example
- project quality management plan sample
- project quality management plan template
- free house plan design software
- project quality management plan pdf
- performance review project manager
- best house plan design software
- design house floor plan free
- office floor plan design free
- easy house plan design software
- project management business plan sample
- design your own floor plan free online