| Review
Title |
Rogowski Coil FDR |
| Date |
9 August 2007 |
| Cognizant
Engineer |
George Labik |
|
Responsible Line Manager |
Larry Dudek |
|
Review Board Chairperson |
Larry Dudek |
|
Review Board Members |
Mike Viola, Mike Cole, Bob Marsala, Wayne Reiersen, Stefan Gerhardt, Brent
Stratton, George Labik, Larry Dudek |
|
Invitees |
Tom Brown, Larry Dudek,
Stefan Gerhardt, Geoff Gettelfinger, Jon Menard, Wayne Reiersen, Brent
Stratton, Mike Viola, Mike Zarnstorff, Jim Anderson, Mike Cole, Jerry
Levine, Jeff Makiel, Judy Malsbury, Brad Nelson, Mike Williams |
|
Attendees |
George Labik, Robert
Marsala, Larry Dudek, Wayne Reiersen, Mike Cole, Mike Viola, Brent
Stratton, Frank Malinowski, Stefan Gerhardt |
|
Charge |
1) Are the requirements
well defined? Yes, listed in the FDR Presentation.
2) Does the design meet the requirements?
Yes, it does.
3) Is the design adequately
underpinned by analysis, R&D, and past experience with similar design? Have
the analyses been documented and checked?
A) A prototype was constructed
and subjected to response testing (data presented at the PDR), thermal
cycling and trial fit up on VV3 with personnel who will be responsible for
the installation present for discussion.
B) The materials exceed the
temperature requirement and measured at acceptable magnetic permeability.
4) Do drawings define the design
adequately to be used as the basis for fabrication, acceptance, and
installation? Drawings are complete except for an installation drawing
and will be formatted per PPPL standards and obtain a release for
fabrication stamp after the FDR is declared a success.
5) Can the coils be fabricated and
installed within the budget and schedule identified in the project baseline?
Yes, they can. based upon the revised baseline and the prototype experience
and the degree to which the work station is completed.
6) Have all relevant chits from
previous design reviews been adequately addressed? Yes, they are part of the
FDR presentation material.
7) Have all significant
technical, cost, schedule, and safety risks been identified and addressed?
Yes |
|
Design Review Material |
Announcement
Chits and
Disposition
Chit Responses
Presentation VV Shell
Presentation Option
Thermal Cycle Tests
Pictures
|
|
Review Board Report |
 |
|
Items Reviewed |
|
Sat |
Unsat |
Comments |
|
Appropriate requirements identified
|
|
|
|
|
Development plans and schedules |
|
|
|
|
Regulatory compliance including USQD and NEPA |
|
|
|
|
Disposition of CHITS from previous reviews |
|
|
|
|
Cost
objectives |
|
|
|
|
Other
review objectives addressed
(Attachment 4 of ENG-033) |
|
|
|
|
Summary of Results
|
|
|
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 |
|
