| Review
Title |
Coil Protection Peer Review |
| Date |
22 February 2008 |
| Cognizant
Engineer |
Raki Ramakrishnan |
|
Responsible Line Manager |
Al von Halle |
|
Review Board Chairperson |
Charles Neumeyer |
|
Review Board Members |
Art Brooks, Ron Hatcher, Al
von Halle, Dick Majeski, Robert Marsala, Eugene Baker, Charles Neumeyer |
|
Invitees |
Charles Neumeyer, Al von
Halle, Robert Marsala, Ron Hatcher, Mounir Awad, Gene Baker, Paul
Sichta, John Lawson, Hans Schneider, Mark Cropper, Mike Zarnstorff, Dick
Majeski, Mike Kalish, Jim Chrzanowski, Bob Woolley, Bob Kaita, Phil
Heitzenroeder, Art Brooks, Tim Stevenson, Hutch Neilson, Don Rej, Mike
Williams, Charlie Gentile, Ron Strykowsky, Bob Simmons |
|
Attendees |
John, Lawson, Hans
Schneider, Mark Cropper, Mike Zarnstorff, Joe Rushinski, Paul Sichta,
Mike Kalish, Jim Chrzanowski, Bob Woolley, Bob Kaita, Phil
Heitzenroeder, Mounir Awad, Tim Stevenson, Frank Malinowski, Jerry
Levine |
|
Charge |
During
this meeting the protection requirements for the first plasma will be
discussed. Following input is required from OTHERS:
For each coil:
a) Max pulse current - CAPABILITY
(What is the coil capable of, assuming proper cooling)
b) Time duration of the pulse - this
is required to design the Pulse Duration & Period (PDP) device. Provide a
window for each.
c) Rated continuous current CAPABILITY
(What is the coil capable of, assuming proper cooling) for each coil
d) I^2*t CAPABILITY (What is the coil
capable of, assuming proper cooling) of each coil
e) Proposed settings for over currents
& I^2*t - SUGGEST 10% (is 5% OK?) ABOVE THE OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENT. What
then is the factor of safety we have for each coil?
f) Other constraints in operation that
will dictate relative coil currents based on mechanical forces etc.
g) PROVIDE INFORMATION OF OTHER
INTERLOCK INPUTS e.g. CRYOSTAT TEMP. ETC. |
|
Design Review Material |
Announcement
Chits and Disposition
Presentation
Parameter Protection Limits
Summary
Drawing
|
|
Review Board Report |
 |
|
Items Reviewed |
|
Sat |
Unsat |
Comments |
|
Appropriate requirements identified
|
|
 |
SRD in Review (not yet approved) |
|
Development plans and schedules |
|
|
|
|
Regulatory compliance including USQD and NEPA |
|
|
Not covered in this review |
|
Disposition of CHITS from previous reviews |
|
|
N/A |
|
Cost
objectives |
|
|
Not covered in this review |
|
Other
review objectives addressed
(Attachment 4 of ENG-033) |
|
|
|
|
Summary of Results
|
This was a peer
review to discuss NCSX protection concepts. Many important points were
discussed and a substantial number of chits were generated. |
|
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 |
|
