[Pansophy] Specialty Fabrication Response Form

Mon Sep 8 09:15:09 EDT 2025

Hi Adam,

I am available most days this week but would prefer Thursday. I will be onsite this day and would prefer to meet in person. Anytime works for me.

Regards,
Matthew Menia
________________________________
From: Adam O'Brien <aobrien at jlab.org>
Sent: Friday, September 5, 2025 10:56 AM
To: Matthew Menia <menia at jlab.org>
Cc: John Buttles <buttles at jlab.org>; Jim Follkie <follkiej at jlab.org>; pansophy <pansophy at jlab.org>
Subject: Fw: Specialty Fabrication Response Form

Matthew,

See below for information on the discussions we've been having.  The main goal is to have a documented path to respond to concerns that workcenter leads have about work that has been requested - this began as a way to improve EBW but the concept applies to many workcenters.  There are infinite ways to approach the problem, I agree we should have a discussion to decide what Pansophy is willing/able to provide and how we think the system should work.  Are there any days next week that work for you to discuss?

Thank you,
Adam O'Brien
Staff Engineer II, SRF Operations
600 Kelvin Drive
Suite 8, Mailstop 55-H
Newport News, VA 23606-4323
Office: (757)269-7279
Cell: (513)290-3210

________________________________
From: Adam O'Brien <aobrien at jlab.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 3, 2025 1:07 PM
To: John Buttles <buttles at jlab.org>; Paul Carriere <carriere at jlab.org>
Cc: Jim Follkie <follkiej at jlab.org>; Gregory Grose <grose at jlab.org>; Earl Mosby <mosby at jlab.org>; George DeKerlegand <georged at jlab.org>
Subject: Re: Specialty Fabrication Response Form

John,

The current EBW request system is effectively the first half of the EBW traveler, which contains information on the assembly and joint (charge code, project title, materials/thicknesses).  The current version is designed to request a weld, not an assembly, so when requesting an assembly with 5 welds, they would input 5 requests.  I think this is how all of the workcenter request systems currently function.  There have been discussions for future versions of the EBW system which would allow to make a single request and then further break down that into individual steps.  More on that later.

I think the first thing to decide is how we think this system should work on a macro scale, before we get too into the details of what info is on what forms. Lets start with our current goals:

  1.
EBW Workcenter Request Form - An online form for requesting work from the EBW workcenter
  2.
EBW Fabication Request Response Form - An online form for responding to EBW requests re: issues, concerns, needs

We've discussed and I think agreed that both of those concepts are useful not only to EBW, but to all workcenters (or, at least all workcenters that SRF engineering controls: Press, Braze, EBW, CMM - I think chemistry and machine shop are also important but not "ours").  We could create separate versions of these two forms for each workcenter and be done with it, with the "response form" being a simple button alongside the request on the administration page.  It would then be up to the project manager to break down their request into steps and create requests for each step.  Doing that for simple assemblies would be a fair amount of work (a simple C75 single cell with no modifications has ~40 individual steps between the workcenters listed above), for complex assemblies like the 197 that are easily over 500 steps, this would take a lot of effort and be difficult to stay on top of.

We could go one step further and implement all of this into a single "Fabrication Management" system that includes the ability to break down an assembly into it's subcomponents/subprocesses.  This would include the system for responding to concerns with the drawings/plan, and would act as a hub to send out work requests for the project.  A key part of this for me is that ALL FABRICATIONS go through this system, no matter how small, to ensure they have been reviewed and all parties are satisifed.  Also gives a complete record of all steps performed, making it a complete traveler that builds based on the work done, not on what we think we will do.  Properly setup, later upgrades to the system could include things like quoting, scheduling, traveler generation, status boards, etc.

That is the concept I end up on whenever I imagine what I'd like to be the final result of the "Work Request" system(s) that Pansophy has been working on.  Obviously they would need to be on-board with this idea, but what does the rest of the group think?

Thank you,
Adam O'Brien
Staff Engineer II, SRF Operations
600 Kelvin Drive
Suite 8, Mailstop 55-H
Newport News, VA 23606-4323
Office: (757)269-7279
Cell: (513)290-3210

________________________________
From: John Buttles <buttles at jlab.org>
Sent: Monday, September 1, 2025 6:12 PM
To: Adam O'Brien <aobrien at jlab.org>; Paul Carriere <carriere at jlab.org>
Cc: Jim Follkie <follkiej at jlab.org>; Gregory Grose <grose at jlab.org>
Subject: RE: Specialty Fabrication Response Form

Adam, Jim/Greg/Paul

I tried to envision a completed “EBW Request and Response Form” – see below and in the modified file attached.   I don’t know what the new EBW Request form looks like, what info it has on it but the point will be to get the Requestor to define pretty completely what is being requested.  Maybe more or less info is needed but I took a shot at the incoming document.

The “EBW Work Center Response” section has a spot for “what’s wrong”, “how to change it” and “how bad it might be if we proceed”.  Maybe more or less info or room on form is sensible.

I think this is a useful exercise but I admit it might take revisions to get the first form right and then a mod or two over time to get it right for all stakeholders.

John

Customer Task Description

Drawings

Name

Material Desc.

Lot #, history

Notes

something else?

One

tube

RR300

part will be formed in TechShop

Two

port

RR300

part will be formed in TechShop

Three

flange

NbTi

inventory bar stock

Four

cavity

RR300

purchased flange

EBW Request

Additional Requirements

Other comments

One

tube

Weld flange to port; weld part to tube; weld tube to cavity

Remove 30 microns material in BCP. Bake before welding to prevent outgassing. Weld components together with full penetration welds.

Need tight tolerance on port position on tube

Two

port

Three

flange

Four

cavity

EBW Work Center Response

Drawing

Feature

Concern

Desired modifications

Risk

One,Two

fit up geometry

Drawing dimension/Tolerance will allow conditions that prevent weld-fit and/or allow excessive tolerance

Revise drawing to eliminate conflicts

Can't complete weld, lose schedule position or reduced weld quality

Three, Four

fit up geometry

Cavity does not have adequate weld prep development to accommodate tube joint

consult good practice - modify cavity contact area joining to beam tube

inadequate weld attachment, concentricity problems

Drawing

Dwg Section

EBW Workcenter Commitment

Exceptions to Requested Delivery

Mitigation

One,Two

fit up geometry

Do not recommend you submit components for weld

none offered

need print change

Three, Four

We'll meet all requirements but concentricity

best efforts result is offered on concentricity

Change prints, revise machining, allow looser tolerance

From: Adam O'Brien <aobrien at jlab.org>
Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2025 3:32 PM
To: John Buttles <buttles at jlab.org>; Paul Carriere <carriere at jlab.org>
Cc: Jim Follkie <follkiej at jlab.org>; Gregory Grose <grose at jlab.org>
Subject: Specialty Fabrication Response Form

John,

First draft of the EBW/fabrication response form attached.  I included a few examples to provide some context.  The form started as EBW-only but I believe this has value to all fabrication workcenters so I wrote it as such.  Please provide feedback as you see fit.

Jim/Greg/Paul - John directed me to work on a documentable way to respond to fabrication requests, specifically to provide feedback on any concerns the group may have about a given request.  While it is meant as a way to improve processes and ensure models/drawings have been properly reviewed, it is also a way to provide documentation when there is disagreement between the project and the fabrication team, or provide some documentation when no drawings are available.  If you think is has applicability to braze/press, let me know if there are any changes you'd like to see or additional fields to add, etc.

Thank you,

Adam O'Brien
Staff Engineer II, SRF Operations
600 Kelvin Drive

Suite 8, Mailstop 55-H

Newport News, VA 23606-4323

Office: (757)269-7279

Cell: (513)290-3210
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/pansophy/attachments/20250908/d487aa12/attachment-0001.htm>