MICE MUON Interface meeting at Mission Inn, Riverside, California

1
MICE MUON Interface meeting at Mission Inn,
Riverside, California January 27 - 30, 2004
MICE Cooling Channel Integration Issues
Wing Lau Oxford Steve Virostek -- LBL
2
Outline of this discussion
Agreement of scope of supply and extent of
interface among different suppliers of the same
module. Distinguishing between a stand-alone item
and an interface item through drawing
convention Using the global reference point as an
interface check. This is introduced to the
collaboration as the coat hanger technique.
3
Agreement of scope of supply and extent of
interface among different suppliers of the same
module.
NIU / IIT will supply the following- The
Absorber windows, the Safety windowsthe Large
end plates. It should provide the following
interface information to- the Absorber Body
supplier- Absorber Window and flange
dimensionOthers? the Focus Coil Module
supplier- PCD, size and number of the threaded
holes for the Safety Window and the Large End
FlangeSurface finish at the seated area of the
mechanical sealOthers?
4
KEK will supply the follow- Absorber
Body Liquid Hydrogen and Gas Helium feed pipes
to and out of the Absorber body to the Focus Coil
Vacuum Vessel inlet entrance nozzleAnchoring
arrangement for the Absorber body LH2 Spillage
bucket As a minimum, it should provide the
following information to- The Window
supplier- PCD, size and number of holes for the
Absorber Window attachment Surface finish at the
seat area of the mechanical seal Mechanical seal
and bolting requirement to guarantee
leak-tightness Window flange geometry required
to allow the routing and attachment of the LH2
and GHe feed pipes Others? The Focus Coil
supplier- Anchoring details for Absorber body
and the LH2 spillage bucket Any fixing
arrangement for the LH2 and GHe feed
pipes Sealing arrangement between the feed inlet
pipes and the entrance nozzle to the top of the
Warm Vessel. Others?
5
Oxford / RAL will supply the follow- Rest of the
items in the Focus Coil Modules except those
already in the KEK and NIU/IITs scope of
supply Support structure for the Focus Coil
Modules As a minimum, it should provide the
following information to- The Window
supplier- Space envelope and dimension of the
Focus Coil Warm bore tube and its Safety Window
attachment ring Space envelop and dimension of
the Large End Flange attachment
ring Others? The Absorber supplier- Space
envelope and dimension of the Focus Coil Warm
bore tube Space envelope and dimension of the
Large End Flange attachment ring Space envelop
for the LH2 GHe feed pipes between the Large
End Flange and the Cryostat Size and location of
the Warm Vessel top entrance nozzle Space
envelop for the LH2 spillage bucket Any fixing
constraint for the LH2 and GHe feed
pipes Others? The Coupling Coil and Detector
Module suppliers Solution on the connection
between modules Common agreement on the
structural support design for the modules Others
6
Definition of supply scope between Oxford/RAL,
NIU/IIT and KEK
Colour code- Oxford / RAL supply is in
black KEK supply is in blue NIU / IIT supply is
in red Pink indicates interface areas
7
Supply Package B (KEK)1 Off Absorber Body with
radial supports / spacersAbsorber Axial
anchoring bracketsLH2 GHe Feeds including
transition joints pipe flange connections1 off
MLI Spillage bucket
Supply Package A (NIU/IIT)-2 off Absorber
Windows with flanges2 off Safety Windows with
flanges1 off Large End Flange
Principal package supply (Oxford / RAL)All the
items within the Focus Coil Module except those
which are already in the supply of Packages A B
8
Distinguishing between a stand-alone item and an
interfacing item through drawing convention
Stand alone items are those within the scope and
responsibility of the same supplier and as such
it does not interface with any other equipment
suppliers. As an example, the Magnet Coil is a
stand alone item as its design bears no impact on
either the Window or the Absorber supplier. Where
items made by one supplier and joined to those
made by another supplier, they are known as
interfacing items. As an example, the flange in
the Large End Plate (marked in Pink) is an
interface item as it interfaces with the Warm
Vessel supplier. In the drawing on the left,
there are three different suppliers, each is
marked with a different colour code. The parts
that interface with other parts of different
suppliers are marked in pink. Drawings on the
Pink parts have a joined ownership of all the
interfacing suppliers. In the MICE project, the
pink parts will have a different drawing
convention than the rest. Any changes made on
these drawings will be notified to all the
related interface suppliers for comments and
consent.
9
Parts marked in Pink colour are interface parts
Interface Colour Codes
10
The Coat Hanger technique An equipment which has
multiple suppliers would comprise stand alone
parts and interface parts as explained
previously. The design and supply of the stand
alone parts are the sole responsibility of the
individual suppliers, but the design and
arrangement on the interface parts have the joint
ownership of all those who have an interest in
that interface. The WBS project engineer is
responsible for specifying the interface
dimensions and space envelop. As long as the
stand alone equipments are within the given space
envelop, the suppliers are free to make changes
to them. No approval is needed for making these
changes. But any alteration to the interface
parts must have the approval of the project
engineer. This must be communicated via the
interface drawings. Even then, it is still not
possible to catch all the changes made to the
interface drawings because of the nature and the
size of the project. A better system which could
automatically trigger a warning to the project
engineer of changes made is therefore needed. The
Coat Hanger technique is designed to offer this
facility and is a good way to ensure interface
compatibility
11
The Coat Hanger technique (continue) The
conventional way of assembling the different
parts together is by attaching the adjoining
parts to a common interface boundary. Where there
are multiple interfaces, or where one part joins
onto another part and another part and so forth,
it would be difficult to define the order of
interface. It would also accumulate errors as
parts are assembles related to each other only
locally and not globally. This makes the checking
of interface compatibility extremely
difficult. As an example, the tiling of a
wall.
12
The Coat Hanger technique (continue)
These are the supplied tiles
13
The Coat Hanger technique (continue)
14
The Coat Hanger technique (continue)
15
The Coat Hanger technique (continue)
16
The Coat Hanger technique (continue)
17
The Coat Hanger technique (continue)
18
The Coat Hanger technique (continue)
19
The Coat Hanger technique (continue)
20
The Coat Hanger technique (continue)
21
The Coat Hanger technique (continue)
22
The Coat Hanger technique (continue)
23
The Coat Hanger technique (continue)
24
The Coat Hanger technique (continue)
Mismatch / foul went undetected until the job is
nearly finished
25
The Coat Hanger technique (continue) The
conventional way of assembling the different
parts together is by attaching the adjoining
parts to a common interface boundary. Where there
are multiple interfaces, or where one part joins
onto another part and another part and so forth,
it would be difficult to define the order of
interface. It would also accumulate errors as
parts are assembles related to each other only
locally and not globally. This makes the checking
of interface compatibility extremely
difficult. The way to overcome this is to avoid
having to assemble parts onto each other. In this
new concept, every parts will have a reference
centre which coincides with one of the globally
registered centres designed to position the
magnet modules relatively to the beam line and
then to the experimental hall. This reference
centre acts like a coat hanger
26
The Coat Hanger technique (continue)
27
The Coat Hanger technique (continue)
Reference centre for the individual tile
28
The Coat Hanger technique (continue)
29
The Coat Hanger technique (continue)
Global reference centre
Reference centre for the individual tile
30
The Coat Hanger technique (continue)
Global reference centre
Reference centre for the individual tile
31
The Coat Hanger technique (continue)
32
The Coat Hanger technique (continue)
33
The Coat Hanger technique (continue)
34
The Coat Hanger technique (continue)
35
The Coat Hanger technique (continue) The
conventional way of assembling the different
parts together is by attaching the adjoining
parts to a common interface boundary. Where there
are multiple interfaces, or where one part joins
onto another part and another part and so forth,
it would be difficult to define the order of
interface. It would also accumulate errors as
parts are assembles related to each other only
locally and not globally. This makes the checking
of interface compatibility extremely
difficult. The way to overcome this is to avoid
having to assemble parts onto each other. In this
new concept, every parts will have a reference
centre which coincides with one of the globally
registered centres designed to position the
magnet modules relatively to the beam line and
then to the experimental hall. This reference
centre acts like a coat hanger The referencing
system works like a global navigation system.
Through the reference centres, we can refer the
position of each parts to a global coordinate. By
hanging the various parts to a globally
registered centre, it will automatically assemble
the parts to a pre-defined position. Any
interface incompatibility will be easily detected
as each equipment / parts will have its unique
place in the global coordinate system. No two
parts should have the same coordinates. We will
insist on this centre being retained on all the
stand alone and interface drawings.
36
This is how it works on MICE There are different
levels of reference centre, designated to have a
similar level allocation as the WB
packages. The level 1 reference centre is the
centre of the experimental hall The level 2
reference centres are those along the beam line
centre for the positioning of each of the
modules The level 3 reference centres are the
centres of the individual modules As an example-
The Focus Coil module will have a level 3
reference centre. All the parts associated with
the windows and the absorber will be referenced
to this level 3 reference centre. The Focus Coil
modules, the Coupling Coil, the detector modules
and any equipment that are aligned to the beam
centre line will be referenced to the level 2
reference centre. The beam line centres will be
referenced to the level 1 reference centre etc.
37
(No Transcript)
38
(No Transcript)
39
(No Transcript)
40
(No Transcript)
41
(No Transcript)
42
(No Transcript)
43
(No Transcript)
44
(No Transcript)
45
(No Transcript)
46
(No Transcript)
47
(No Transcript)
48
(No Transcript)
49
(No Transcript)
50
(No Transcript)
51
The hanging of the AFC and Coupling modules
52
(No Transcript)
53
(No Transcript)
54
(No Transcript)
55
(No Transcript)
56
(No Transcript)
57
(No Transcript)
58
(No Transcript)
59
Interface compatibility check at a glance
60
Summary We believe we have a well defined scope
of supply between the three suppliers within the
AFC module The handling of the interface issues
has been thought through well and the separation
of the stand alone items and interface items will
minimise a lot of unnecessary work required to
update drawings every time a change is called
for, be it relevant to the interface or not. The
control of interface via a drawing convention
will allow the project engineers to concentrate
on changes that have implication on the other
suppliers. The Coat Hanger technique is an
effective tool in keeping interface control
simple and fool proof. It remains to be seen how
efficient it is to be implemented across the MICE
project.
My final thought......
61
Come on, speak the engineers language
I think they just want a piece of pie