Project Design Review Plan · Web viewA design was presented to provide collimation of the PIP-II...
13
PIP-II BTLBA Beamline Collimators Preliminary Design Review Report Document number: ED000 Document Approval Name: B. Brown Org: AD Contact: [email protected] Role: Committee Chair Date: 7/17/2019 Name: K. Duel Org: AD Contact: [email protected] Role: Committee Member Date: 7/17/2019 Name: M. Vincent Org: ES&H Contact: [email protected] Role: Committee Member Date: 7/17/2019
Transcript of Project Design Review Plan · Web viewA design was presented to provide collimation of the PIP-II...
PIP-II BTLBA Beamline CollimatorsPreliminary Design Review Report
Document number: ED000
Document Approval
Name: B. BrownOrg: ADContact: [email protected]: Committee Chair
Date: 7/17/2019
Name: K. DuelOrg: ADContact: [email protected]: Committee Member
Date: 7/17/2019
Name: M. VincentOrg: ES&HContact: [email protected]: Committee Member
Date: 7/17/2019
PIP-II (BTLBA Beamline Collimators Review) Report
Revision History
Revision Date Release
Originator:Role:
Description of Change
- Initial Release
Revision control is managed via Fermilab Teamcenter Workflows.
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory 2
PIP-II (BTLBA Beamline Collimators Review) Report
Table of Contents
1. Introduction.........................................................................................................................................4
2. Review Agenda..................................................................................................................................6
3. Review Charge Statement.................................................................................................................8
4. Reference Documents (available on Indico and, where noted, on Teamcenter)...............................8
5. Answers to Charge Questions...........................................................................................................9
6. Findings............................................................................................................................................10
7. Comments........................................................................................................................................10
8. Recommendations...........................................................................................................................11
9. Value Engineering Opportunities.....................................................................................................11
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory 3
PIP-II (BTLBA Beamline Collimators Review) Report
1. Introduction
A Preliminary Design Review (PDR) was held on 06/11/2019 for BTLBA Beamline collimators. This report documents the findings, comments and recommendations from the review.
A design was presented to provide collimation of the PIP-II Linac beam in the first cells of the beam transport line. Three collimators for horizontal, vertical, and momentum collimation employ aluminum jaws embedded in a steel and marble absorber (shield). The design calls for 53.11” between the upstream quadrupole and the downstream dipole. A collimator requiring 47.24” along the beam line was presented. The specifications provide for absorbing 1% of a 25 kW H - beam from the PIP-II Linac. Presentations of the beam line design, radiation calculations, thermal calculations and mechanical design were provided.
The review status of this preliminary design was thorough and complete. Cross-checking of the design parameters during the review reveals that the space along the beam line is less than expected in the design so additional considerations are needed before moving forward.
The Introduction provides a brief narrative of the following:
Brief description of the Project area under review (descriptions of the System, Sub-system, and device or requirement under review)
Brief summary of the thoroughness, effectiveness, and general summarized committee thoughts of the review itself.
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory 4
PIP-II (BTLBA Beamline Collimators Review) Report
Figure 1: BTLBA Beamline Collimator
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory 5
PIP-II (BTLBA Beamline Collimators Review) Report
2. Review Agenda
Location: The Cooler Conference Room (East Booster Tower)
Date: June 11, 2019
Time:
Indico Site:
Participants:
08:30 – 4:00 PM
https://indico.fnal.gov/event/20960/ (material to be posted by 06/06)
B. Brown (Chair) AD Role: Reviewer for PIP-IIM. Vincent ES&H Role: Reviewer for PIP-IIK. Duel AD Role: Reviewer for PIP-III. Kourbanis AD/PIP II Role: Coordinator M. Xiao AD/PIP-II Role: PresenterR. Campos AD Role: PresenterV. Sidorov AD Role: PresenterIgor Rakhno AD Role: Presenter
Agenda details:
I. Introduction: M. Xiao
II. MARS Calculations: I. Rakhno
III. ANSYS Calculations: R. Campos
IV. Mechanical Design: V. Sidirov
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory 6
PIP-II (BTLBA Beamline Collimators Review) Report
V. Closeout – Review Chair
a. Summary Statementb. Preliminary Findingsc. Preliminary Commentsd. Preliminary Recommendations
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory 7
PIP-II (BTLBA Beamline Collimators Review) Report
3. Review Charge Statement
[4.] Modify charge statement if review scope is changed.
[5.]
The reviewers are asked to perform a Preliminary Design Review of BTLBA Beamline Collimators.
Specifically, the panel is asked to answer the following charge questions:
1. Are the requirements documented, clear, complete and appropriate?
2. Is the BTLBA Beamline Collimators design likely to meet the requirements? Explain any deficiencies or concerns.
3. Are there any features present (or absent) that threaten the intended function and performance of this design?
4. Have safety and environmental aspects been appropriately considered?
5. Have quality aspects been appropriately considered?
The intended outcome of the review is: Collect and document findings, comments and recommendations necessary to proceed to the
Final Design stage
The following documents will be available on the Indico site approximately 1 week before the review: This charge document. Functional requirements specifications for MI/RR Upgrades Technical requirements specification for MI RF Upgrade Risk assessment table Safety by Design table PDR slide deck Design Review Report Template, to be completed by the reviewers
4.[6.] Reference Documents (available on Indico and, where noted, on Teamcenter)
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory 8
PIP-II (BTLBA Beamline Collimators Review) Report
1 PIP-II Project Review Plan (ED0008163)2 Functional requirements for Booster upgrades (ED0008097)3 Technical requirements specification for Booster ORBUMP Magnets4 Preliminary interface document5 Risk assessment table6 Safety by Design table7 Design Review Report Template, to be completed by the reviewers8
5.[7.] Answers to Charge Questions
[8.] Duplicate charge questions and provide brief summary answers.
[9.]
[10.]
1. Are the requirements documented, clear, complete and appropriate?• The FRS and TRS documents were provided for review by the panel.• The general requirements outlined are adequate.• These documents should be reviewed and updated before the final design stage, with particular
attention paid to alignment and vacuum.
2. Is the BTLBA Beamline Collimators design likely to meet the requirements? Explain any deficiencies or concerns.
• Since the requirements are sufficiently conservative (high-loss), the fact that the requirements are only adequately addressed should not raise concerns.
• Collimation system design was created with no modifications to the lattice, which caused substantial design restraints. Should the collimation system design need to be significantly modified, a change to the lattice or some change in goals may be required.
3. Are there any features present (or absent) that threaten the intended function and performance of this design?
• None were identified.
4. Have safety and environmental aspects been appropriately considered? • Overall, the safety and environmental aspects have been addressed.• End-of-life concerns suggest modifications to make collimator removal as straightforward as
possible due to ALARA concerns.
5. Have quality aspects been appropriately considered?
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory 9
PIP-II (BTLBA Beamline Collimators Review) Report
• Ordinary QA practices should be sufficient. • Additional documentation of quality aspects will be required as the design moves into
further stages.
6.[11.] Findings
General, factual observations about material presented which require no response.
• Chemical impurities in 6061 aluminum should be small enough to alleviate radiological concerns, but this should be reviewed. Using www.matweb.com we find that a typical 6061 Al has sub-percent impurities of Cr, Cu, Fe, Mn, Si and Zn and about 1% of Mg. These may not present a result in important additional residual radiation concerns but experts should re-consider them. The strength of 6061 is not likely to be required so higher purity aluminum may be acceptable.
• The overburden of earth above this beamline should be specified for convenience of future reviews.
• A lattice design change would enable adding masks to collimators for additional shielding• Thermal analysis did not include stands which provide additional paths for cooling.• Flange connection location, as designed, inside steel was determined to be the best option• Beam centering & collimator alignment
• During assembly, alignment and centering of jaws must be detailed• After assembly, provide provisions for in-tunnel checking using mechanical tools to
assure LVDT readbacks match jaw position (without the involvement of the Alignment group).
• Due to limited BPM placement possibilities, develop a plan to use quad centers as beam-center reference. This can be done by measuring beam deflection vs. quad strength with beam deliberately placed off center.
• Document plan to align vacuum chamber and beam pipes
7.[12.] Comments
Observations with value judgments, or “soft” recommendations that require action by the design/engineering team, but where a formal written response is not requirement.
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory 10
PIP-II (BTLBA Beamline Collimators Review) Report
• The very limited space available after providing sufficient absorber depth for collimation implies a very challenging engineering requirement for vacuum interfaces and for maintenance concerns for nearby devices.
• Consider type of bronze used in rod guides and determine if it is the best choice for vacuum • Review design for potential virtual leaks such as trapped air in blind holes• Consider building thicker tunnel walls near collimators to address radiation concerns• A significant fraction of the beam power intercepted by these collimators escapes downstream
to the remaining beam line. As described, it is within the design guidance of <1 W/m but further consideration of where this loss may be deposited is valuable. Are downstream masks (fixed) sufficient to control radiation damage or radiation exposure or will collimators (with motion control) be required.
• Fermilab has a long history of using radiation resistant epoxies for magnet insulation. Procurement of the magnets in this beam line need to take this into consideration.
8.[13.] Recommendations
Items that require formal action and closure in writing prior to receiving approval to move into the next phase of the project, or items that require formal action and closure in writing prior the next review.
• Document what will function as hard stops should LVDTs and limit switches fail to control the motor system
• Test functionality of hard stop design• Perform additional thermal analysis of collimator assuming loss of some conduction paths to
assure margin of safety– Could vertical design be simplified to not require contact between jaws and vacuum
chamber? (Value engineering?)• Concerns about radiation shielding (borated polyethylene, for example) for cabling or separate
path outside of main enclosure should be addressed. Patch panels are suggested in any case.• Beamline should be sufficiently instrumented to ensure quick recognition and response to off-
normal Linac performance
9.[14.] Value Engineering Opportunities
Value Engineering (VE) opportunities are often discovered during conceptual and preliminary design reviews. The Review Committee will consider Value Engineering in their assessment of the reviewed materials proposed design and provide a list of suggested opportunities below. The PIP-II Project established a PIP-II Value Engineering Plan to support this effort [10]. VE opportunities are not
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory 11
PIP-II (BTLBA Beamline Collimators Review) Report
intended to be recommendations. Recommendations are captured in Section 9 above. If no VE opportunities are identified, please indicate.
The vacuum constraints are restrictive enough such that careful review at this stage will improve functionality and perhaps reduce installation effort.
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory 12
