NCSX Web Pages  

Project | Management | Physics | Procurement | Manufacturing

NCSX FTP Sites  

Project FTP Server | Supplier FTP Server

Navigation Trail  

Engineering > Design Review > WBS 18
Review Title Modular Coil Assembly Fixture Peer Review
Date 16 February 2005
Cognizant Engineer Tom Brown
Responsible Line Manager Brad Nelson
Review Board Chairperson Larry Dudek
Review Board Members Mike Cole, Art Brooks, Dave Williamson, Mike Viola, Steve Raftopoulos, Paul Goranson
Invitees Hutch Neilson, Phil Heitzenroeder, Kevin Freudenberg, Erik Perry, Mike Zarnstorff, Jim Chrzanowski
Attendees Larry Dudek, Hutch Neilson, Steve Raftopoulos, Wayne Reiersen, Phil Heitzenroeder, Judy Malsbury, Brad Nelson, Jim Chrzanowski, Joe Rushinski, Art Brooks, Mike Kalish, Mike Cole.
Charge

1. Has the feasibility of a possible fixture design been demonstrated kinematically, i.e., can a workable fixture be designed?

2. Are the design requirements sufficiently detailed to allow a vendor to build a suitable fixture?

  • Definition of required motion

  • Modular Coil handling point/load/cg definition

  • Seismic Requirements

  • Safety Requirements

3. Is there an adequate list of vendors?

Design Review Material

Announcement

Presentation

Chits and Disposition Plan

Review Board Report
Items Reviewed

Sat Unsat

Comments

Appropriate requirements identified   Not Presented in detail
Development plans and schedules   Not Presented
Regulatory compliance including USQD and NEPA   Not Presented
Disposition of CHITS from previous reviews Not Presented
Cost objectives Not Presented

Other review objectives addressed

(Attachment 4 of ENG-033)

 

Summary of Results

The purpose of this technical peer review was to review the design of the NCSX modular coil assembly fixture.   The charge given to the committee was:

1. Has the feasibility of a possible fixture design been demonstrated kinematically, i.e., can a workable fixture be designed?  2. Are the design requirements sufficiently detailed to allow a vendor to build a suitable fixture? (Including: Definition of required motion,  Mod coil handling point/load/cg definition, Seismic requirements, Safety requirements) 3. Is there an adequate list of vendors?

Tom Brown presented the status of the design, reviewed the purpose of the fixture and the planned path of the parts during assembly as well as the expected clearances between parts.  The desired clearances for workmen and test cell assembly were also reviewed.  Stresses in the gantry and support frame were presented.

Eighteen (18) chits were generated and dispositioned at the review. 

With regard to the charge, item 1, the feasibility of the design has been demonstrated using ProE modeling software.  The space around the work area appears to be adequate to permit a workable solution for the fixture and work needs.  Item 2 of the charge was not addressed in enough detail to determine if requirements are adequate, and chits were written to address this area in more detail.  A subsequent review of the requirements should be held to clarify, all of the requirements as well as the user interface and the prescribed path of the moving parts.

A list of five vendors was presented as the proposed bidders list, which should be adequate for this work.

This review was considered to be acceptable pending the resolution of the chits.

Disposition

(check  one)

1 Acceptable
Acceptable pending resolution of concerns - CHITS identified above must be resolved prior to installation.
1 Incomplete - Additional design work is required prior to another design review.

Cog Engineer Close-out

(check  when done)

 
1 Action required by Disposition is complete

Privacy and Security Notice

Please forward comments and questions to the Webmaster