| Review
Title |
SXR Spacer Modifications
FDR |
| Date |
14 February 2006 |
| Cognizant
Engineer |
Tom Brown |
|
Responsible Line Manager |
Brad Nelson |
|
Review Board Chairperson |
Larry Dudek |
|
Review Board Members |
Paul Goranson, Tom
Brown, Mike Cole, Dave Johnson, Brent Stratton |
|
Invitees |
Larry Dudek, Wayne Reiersen,
Paul Goranson, Mike Cole, Geoff Gettelfinger, Dave Johnson, Brent
Stratton, Fred Dahlgren, Mike Viola, Brad Nelson, Hutch Neilson, Irving
Zatz |
|
Attendees |
Larry Dudek, Mike Cole, Paul
Goranson, Tom Brown, Jeff Makiel, Geoff Gettelfinger, Wayne Reiersen,
Dave Johnson, Irving Zatz, Fred Dahlgren, Brad Nelson, Mike Viola |
|
Charge |
The following are the
charge questions:
1. Is the design adequately underpinned by analysis?
2. Are the drawings complete?
3. Is there adequate space to install the VV spacer with the
included SXR cans? |
|
Design Review Material |
Announcement
Chits and Disposition
Presentation
Drawings
SE340-001
SE340-002
Analysis
Summary of Results
|
|
Review Board Report |
 |
|
Items Reviewed |
|
Sat |
Unsat |
Comments |
|
Appropriate requirements identified
|
 |
|
|
|
Development plans and schedules |
|
|
Not presented |
|
Regulatory compliance including USQD and NEPA |
|
|
Not presented |
|
Disposition of CHITS from previous reviews |
|
|
|
|
Cost
objectives |
|
|
Not presented |
|
Other
review objectives addressed
(Attachment 4 of ENG-033) |
|
|
 |
|
Summary of Results
|
Tom Brown presented the
review material and the analysis was presented by Fred Dahlgren.
The analysis indicated the design was conservative with a factor of
safety well over 2. The assembly analysis performed and presented
indicated that 4 of the "cans" would interfere with modular coils during
assembly. This was addressed in the design by leaving these four
cans off the spool until after machine assembly. The most
controversial part of the design was the Tolerancing of the spool and
cans to keep the cost down. After a long discussion on this topic
it was decided that the vendor would be consulted on what was easily
achievable and to suggest areas of relaxation of tolerances to keep
fabrication costs down. Four chits were generated on the some
details of the drawings and they were dispositioned after the meeting.
This review was considered successful pending 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 |
