MICE Target - Risk Lara Howlett University of Sheffield.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
MICE MICE Target Mechanism Paul Smith University of Sheffield 8 th June 2010 (Based upon talk given by Chris Booth at CM26)
Advertisements

K. Long, 18 April, 2015 Beam-line status — red sky at night?
MICE Target Report Video Conference 15/03/07 Chris Booth Sheffield 15 th March 2007.
The MICE Target Lara Howlett University of Sheffield.
Progress on Target Design Chris Booth Sheffield 2 nd August 2004.
MICE Target Status Chris Booth 30 th March Chris BoothUniversity of Sheffield 2 The challenge ISIS beam shrinks from 73 mm to 55 mm radius during.
Target Status Report Lara Howlett University of Sheffield.
MICE TARGET HARDWARE C. Booth, P. Hodgson, R. Nicholson, P. J. Smith, Dept. of Physics & Astronomy University of Sheffield, England. 1 - The MICE Experiment.
MICE Target Development Chris Booth Sheffield 8 th June 2006.
MICE Target Report Chris Booth (for target team) Sheffield 7 th May 2009.
MICE Target Schedule Chris Booth Sheffield 12 th June 2006.
Progress on Target Design Chris Booth Sheffield 14 th July 2004.
MICE RF Module Safety Steve Virostek Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory MICE Collaboration Meeting February 12, 2005.
Global Magnet Systems including Field Mapping MICE Project Board 28 th June 2011 M Courthold – RAL R Preece - RAL.
Status of Electronics & Control System P J Smith University of Sheffield 16/12/2009.
MICO 22 nd February 2010 Terry Hart (MOM) - Decay Solenoid and Target - MICE Machine Physics runs - User Run Plans.
MICE Target Status Chris Booth Sheffield 10 th May 2006.
TARGET WORKSHOP – SHEFFIELD HALLAM UNIVERSITY Monday 2 March 2009 The ISIS – MICE interface Eddie McCarron Contents 1.Target alignment with ISIS beam centre.
Target Update – Mico Meeting Monday 21 st April 2008 General Expect to obtain new coils for stators anytime New Shafts at RAL for metrology. Will be back.
SWE Introduction to Software Engineering
MICE Target Review Chris Booth Sheffield 12 th June 2006.
MOM - M.ApollonioAccel. R&D/Physics and IADR - RAL - 19/3/ Summary of MICE operations – 14/15 March 2008 AIMS - establish MICE beamline in ISIS synchrotron.
Target Assembly and Installation Update 20 th August 2009 Paul Hodgson The University of Sheffield.
Risk Management  Risk is the product of –Probability that something will go wrong And –Severity of its consequences  How to reduce risk? –Reduce probability.
Chapter 8Basic Computer Maintenance  8.1Preventive Maintenance 8.1Preventive Maintenance 8.1Preventive Maintenance  8.2Monitoring System Performance.
MICE Target Report Video Conference 05/07/07 Chris Booth Sheffield 5 th July 2007.
Target Design – Status and Plans Chris Booth Sheffield 12 th January 2005.
MICE: overview K. Long, 18 March, Contents ► Introduction ► Beam line ► Infrastructure ► MICE steps ► Phase II (comment) ► Conclusions.
MICE Target Mechanism P J Smith University of Sheffield MICE CM 18 RAL June 2007.
S A Griffiths Target Review Jan 2009 Target Electrical / Control Schematic HexBridge Power electronics Interface PSU Capacitor Bank Local Control Interface.
Chapter 4: Overview of Preventive Maintenance
MICE Target – Design Update and Test Plans Chris Booth Sheffield 22 nd October 2005.
Gek 16/6/041 ITRP Comments on Question 19 GEK 9/06/04 19) For the X-band (warm) technology, detail the status of the tests of the full rf delivery system.
MICE MICE Target Mechanism Control Electronics Upgrade P J Smith – University of Sheffield James Leaver – Imperial College 2 nd March 2009.
MICE MICE Target Mechanism CM38 – Napa Valley P J Smith on behalf of the MICE target team.
Tracker QA Paul Kyberd Quality Assurance A status report: A procedure for ensuring the quality of the finished tracker has been designed following our.
Status of installed target Preparation of “demonstrator” target Chris Booth Sheffield 25 th January 2008.
UKNF OsC RAL – 31 st January 2011 UKNF - Status, high lights, plans J. Pozimski.
Status of the MICE Project & Dashboard MICE Project Board 14 th November 2013 Roy Preece.
Target Status Target installed in ISIS “Demonstrator” target in R78 Chris Booth Sheffield 7 th February 2008.
Target Status CM19 RAL October 2007 P J Smith – University of Sheffield.
MICE Target Development Lara Howlett University of Sheffield.
Status of Target Design Chris Booth Sheffield 28 th October 2004.
MICE TARGET OPERATION C. Booth, P. Hodgson, P. J. Smith, Dept. of Physics & Astronomy University of Sheffield, England. 1 – The MICE Experiment2 - The.
MICE Status & Plans MICE-UK paul drumm 15 th September 2004.
Risk  Risk is the product of –Probability that something will go wrong And –Severity of its consequences  How to reduce risk? –Reduce probability that.
March 18, 2008 TJRMICE Beamline Status1 MICE Beamline Status (March 18, 2008) Tom Roberts Muons, Inc. Illinois Institute of Technology.
Target tests 1 st – 2 nd Nov. Chris Booth Sheffield 7 th December 2006.
Target Commissioning Target installed in ISIS “Demonstrator” target in R78 Initial commissioning plans Chris Booth Sheffield 11 th February 2008.
Risk Analysis P. Cennini AB-ATB on behalf of the n_TOF Team  Procedure  Documents in preparation  Conclusions Second n_TOF External Panel Review, CERN,
Eric Prebys/LARP 2/17/2016.  CERN has taken unprecedented steps to control information about this event, including altering the electronic LHC log to.
MICE Target Failure UKNFIC Meeting Adam Dobbs - when and why 4 th July 2008.
1 Run7 startup M. Sullivan MAC Review Nov , 2007 M. Sullivan for the PEP-II Team Machine Advisory Committee Review November 15-17, 2007 Run 7 Startup.
Chris Booth & Paul Smith Sheffield 16 th August 2007 MICE Target Installation.
Technical Board Summary Alan Bross MICE CM17 CERN February 25, 2007.
Chris BoothUniversity of Sheffield 1 Target Status & Progress 1 st February 2006 Disappointingly slow progress over last 2 months. However, progress is.
© 2008 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.Cisco ConfidentialPresentation_ID 1 Chapter 4: Overview of Preventive Maintenance IT Essentials 5.0.
MICE Target – Status & Plans Chris Booth Sheffield 28 th February 2006.
Target Status 27 th August 2009 Chris Booth The University of Sheffield.
The Target Drive For The MICE Experiment Control and Infrastructure Optical Readout and Drive Electronics Target Drive A linear electromagnetic drive has.
SPS start up 2014 SPS OP. SPS changes during LS1 New transformers and 18kV cables for MPS. New function generators (FGC’s) with lots of new and different.
Chris Booth Sheffield 29th March 2006
Target Installation Plan
P. J. Smith on behalf of the MICE target team.
Detector building Notes of our discussion
MICE Target Report Video Conference 29/11/07
RF operation of REX-ISOLDE
Status of Target Design
Which Parts Get Affected Due to a Bad Radiator
Risk Risk is the product of How to reduce risk?
Presentation transcript:

MICE Target - Risk Lara Howlett University of Sheffield

Overview A first detailed Risk Assessment has been produced This is necessary from both the MICE perspective and the ISIS perspective  We need to convince ISIS that the risks to ISIS are extremely low in order to get permission to put the target in  Any failure causing damage to ISIS obviously has serious repercussions for MICE This talk will discuss risks identified and further work to be done to understand the level of risk and reduce the level of risk

Risks – Mechanical Breaking of mechanical components  Shaft  Detachment of comb  Magnets  Ceramic Bearings  Ceramic tube  Glass window It is not clear how the likelihood of these risks can be quantified Clearly all components will be tested before being installed, so the outstanding issue will be that of fatigue over time.

Risks - Mechanical Failure of jacking mechanism Failure of indium seals Leak in water cooling Target Melts Failure of gate valve

Risks - Electrical The most significant problem will be excessive heating if an electrical failure causes high currents to be put through the coils for too long Possible problems caused by heating  Damage to coils  Demagnetisation of magnets  Outgassing at high temperatures  Overheating of ceramic causes failure in indium seals It is anticipated that in the long term both hardware and software interlocks to prevent this occurring will be in place. These may not be ready for November.

Risks Electrical Failure of the Hex bridge due to a Mosfet failure is likely to occur at some point (likely timescale should be examined but is expected to be ~ few years)  ISIS will be tripped off and the target will need to be jacked out of the beam  Further operation will not be possible until the Hex bridge is replaced A computational error from electronics causing incorrect target insertion/dropping of target is also possible  Probability needs to be tested but is currently quite high  More work is needed to give electronics the stability to make this an unlikely event

Risks Optics Slow misalignment of the optics  Misalignment of the optics will cause errors in position reading  If these errors are significant the target will not be able to actuate As much long term testing as time allows will be carried out

Risks Radiation Risks from radiation damage are  Failure of glue holding magnets together  Damage of optic fibres  Failure of magnets  Failure of potting material An initial assessment of the radiation levels to be expected in a years running have been done using FLUKA Further work needs to be done on the implications, but it seems likely that the magnets will need replacing every year

Risks Schedule There is also a risk from some component not being ready in time for tests/installation  Stator not ready  Shuttle/shaft not ready  Optics not ready  Power electronics  Control electronics Highest risks for July tests are the shaft and the optics Highest risk for Sept tests is the electronics Risks for going into ISIS in November will need to be judged on the basis of the acceptance criteria

Risks to meeting specs There is also a risk that we will not be able to meet the specs  Inability to pulse at 1 Hz due to heating of the coils This is of concern and needs to be investigated further  Inability to achieve the accelerations required We will have a better idea once we have the full power driver electronics but current results mean we are optimistic

Conclusions Significant progress has been made in identifying the risks for target operation More work needs to be done to understand the likelihood of many of these risks Careful consideration of what procedures can be put in place to mitigate risks is also required