Critical Design Review for Proton Beam Window Port Block and Vessel
The Critical Design Review evaluates the readiness of the Proton Beam Window Port Block and Vessel project at ESS-Bilbao. It involves assessing design completeness, safety considerations, procurement readiness, and project plan alignment with specifications. A committee of experts examines system requirements, hazard analysis, design documentation, and technical solutions to ensure compliance with ESS-0037005 standards.
Download Presentation
Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.
The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author. Download presentation by click this link. If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.
Presentation Transcript
Critical Design Review The Proton Beam Window Port Block and Vessel 1
Who is Who? Review Committee: Ulf Od n (Chair, Target Systems) Mattias Wilborgsson (PBW, PBIP) Cecilia Lowe (QC) Laurence Page (Vacuum) Tobias Lexholm (Installation) From ESS-Bilbao: Raul Vivanco (Project Manager PBW Port Block & Vessel) Miguel Mag n (Neutronics) Suren Stepanyan (CAD design) Fernando Castro (Empresarios Agrupados) Jorge Su rez (Nortemec nica) 2
Phase of Project Conceptual Design Preliminary Design Critical Design Review (CDR) defines completion of design Final Design Procurement/ Fab/Assembly Installation Testing and Commissioning 3
Final Design (per ESS-0037005) The Work Package Manager determines when their package is ready for a phase transition. Additionally they will provide all required supporting material to justify to the Committee the package readiness and that it meets the following: Updated System Design Requirements and Description Documents, including identification of all safety-credited controls (can be separate documents) Updated Interface Control Documents Updated System Verification Plan Updated WBS dictionary that incorporates all project work scope CAD models, drawings, P&IDs, etc. sufficient to manufacture and/or procure systems, structures, and components Updated Risk Assessment Manufacturing Process Specification an Manufacturing Verification Plans System Analysis Reports Draft of the technical sections of Procurement Specifications (approval not required at this point) 4
Committee Charge The purpose of this Critical Design Review is to assess whether the design requirements and specifications are at a sufficient level of detail, consistent with release for procurement from commercial vendors, and in line with ESS-0037005. Specific questions that the committee should address are provided below: Are system and interface requirements properly defined, complete and up to date? Have hazards, both radiological and conventional, been properly considered, analyzed, and appropriately addressed? Do the System Design Description documents and related drawings adequately describe the design to the degree needed for procurement and manufacturing? Does the design satisfy all functional, performance and safety requirements? Is the technical solution, material specifications and the scoping documents complete and do they provide sufficient technical basis for potential suppliers to offer and deliver the Connection Ring that satisfies the stated requirements? Does the design cover the installation aspects? Is the project plan reasonable? 5
Committee Deliverables CDR committee report with responses to recommendations that includes a description of actions completed and submitted for closure in response to recommendations, and a brief action plan for items planned for later closure. Exceptions to Table 1 in ESS-0037005 are to be submitted and approved by the Target Head of Division. 6
CDR Committee Report 2. Summary: Brief summary statement Responses to specific charge items: followed by brief responses to the five charge items. Committee? Comments? and? Recommendations? 3. Detailed? Comments? and? Recommendations? Category A or B* Committee Member Comment or Recommendation *Category A includes comments that the Committee member believes must be addressed prior to completion of Final Design, whereas Category B are comments that the Committee member believes should be considered by the design team, even at this late stage. 7
Risks Event Impact Treatment status In-kind partners do not deliver full scope or on time due to: Lack of clarity in in-kind agreements. Exceeding budget, delaying schedule and/or lower quality or performance (technical scope). Close collaboration between ESS-Bilbao and ESS-Lund to verify that requirements are fulfilled. Design interface data exchange between ESS and in- kind partners, and between two or more partners, is not properly defined or managed due to: CAD model exchange is not done on a regular basis from in-kind partners. Interface between ICS and Target not clarified. Interface definitions are not regularly updated which leads to incompatible components delivered by partners. Exchange of models and a greater transparency in the design work on a regular basis. Closer collaboration between IK partner and ESS-Lund to verify that requirements are correct and fulfilled. 8
