lss.fnal.gov · 1.0 scope the gem collaboration will be submitting to the superconducting super...
TRANSCRIPT
@~[MJ
©@®U ~®UD[]l])@UDITll~ [l2l~®ITll
~®[plUa ~ ®~ ~ ®®~
Approved by:
Ron Barber, LANL Dave Etherton, SSCL
Tony Chargin, LLNL Frank Nimblett, CSDL
Gary Deis, LLNL Mark Rennich, ORNL
Dan Marlow, Princeton University
Prepared by:
Rick Sawicki, LLNL
1.a Scope 2.a Objectives 3.a Basis
Table of Contents
4.a Work Breakdown Structure s.a Cost matrix s.a Labor rates 7.a Material costs s.a Risk Analysis/Contingency 9.a Escalation 1 a.a Supporting Documentation 11 .a Responsibilities 12.a Review process 13.a Schedule
1.0 Scope The GEM collaboration will be submitting to the Superconducting Super Collider Laboratory (SSCL) a Letter of Intent (LOI) proposing the construction of a large high PT detector at the SSC site. In support of this document a detailed cost estimate of this detector shall be provided to identify all expenses required to complete the construction of all equipment defined in the LOI. This Cost Estimating Plan (CEP) delineates the method, personnel, and schedule that will be used in the development of the cost.
Since GEM is truly an international collaboration of many participants spanning a broad spectrum of resources from numerous universities and laboratories around the world, clear and decisive guidance is required from the beginning of the cost estimating process to assure that the final product is complete and consistent. All participants shall perform their work in full compliance with the CEP. Any changes required shall be amended to this plan only after approval from the signatories of this document.
2.0 Objectives
2.1 The primary objective is to develop a comprehensive cost estimate of the total GEM project. This includes costs for the necessary research and development activities as well as for the engineering, design, analysis, procurement, fabrication, assembly,. installation and management of the construction project itself. Contributions of all collaborating institutions shall be included and implemented in consistent content and format. Costs shall be accumulated starting from the beginning of the project, defined to be the time when the LOI is accepted, to the completion of the project, defined to be the commencement of experimental activities.
2.2 During the cost estimating process it is desired to develop the detailed backup information that will substantiate the estimate and make it easily defensible. The intent is to provide SSCL with sufficient information that the project may be started with high confidence that the GEM costs are well understood. Therefore, this necessarily will include an appropriate risk/contingency analysis that accounts for unavoidable uncertainties and inevitable
unexpected factors that usually emerge during projects of the size and complexity of the GEM detector.
2.3 Subsequent to the acceptance of the GEM LOI a comprehensive cost control and monitoring effort will be established. An important objective of this present cost planning exercise is to provide a sound basis on which this future effort can be built. The two dimensional system/task hierarchy used in the CEP establishes costs in a format that can be easily translated to a computerized planning system. That system could then be quickly implemented to track the the actual cost against the projected costs determined by the exercise. It is thus vital that the guidelines established by this CEP be strictly followed so that subsequent project monitoring activities may be facilitated.
3.0 Basis
3.1 The basis for the cost estimate developed according to this CEP will be a detailed bottoms up estimate for each subsystem. These estimates shall be based on FY 91 dollars. Escalation factors will be applied at the top level by the CEP coordinator using the standard factors shown below and the temporal cost distributions defined by the subsystem estimators.
3.2 Cost estimates will be developed according to a preapproved two dimensional cost matrix, shown in Table 1, that will be based on a system wide Work Breakdown Structure (WBS). The vertical dimensional of the matrix will be the WBS hierarchy which delineates all subsystems and divides each of those into multiple levels of component parts. The second dimension of the matrix defines the labor and material required in each of four functional activities for each WBS element. These activities are engineering/design, inspection/administration, procurement/fabrication and assembly/installation.
3.3 In addition to providing cost matrix information each estimator shall develop his/her own cost book. This document shall contain supporting information which substantiates each cost data item. This information will be used during both the internal and external defense of the system costs.
4.0 Work Breakdown Structure
The WBS is a hierarchy of elements which identifies all components of a system and their mother/daughter relationships. Costs for all systems and activities will be accumulated in a single WBS list. Cost estimators will develop the subsystem WBS hierarchies which will be collected via e-mail and collated into the GEM detector WBS.
4.1 Level 1 and 2 The guideline WBS hierarchy is listed in Table 2. The top level elements are listed below:
5.2 Detectors 5.2.2 GEM
5.2.2.1 5.2.2.2 5.2.2.3
Research and Development (R&D) Conceptual/Preliminary Design Construction
level 1 level 2
4.1.1 Research and development tasks are those engineering and scientific tasks that are performed to advance the design of a particular subsystem or demonstrate the feasibility of a new concept. They can be analytical or experimental in nature. After a particular design concept is baselined and approved by SSCL at the Engineering Design Report (EDR) all future development activities are considered part of the construction project unless they advance the state of the art of that design. Costs for R&D will clearly be heaviest in the early phase of the project and declining rapidly after the EDR process is complete.
4.1.2 Conceptual/ preliminary design activities include all engineering design tasks from the Expression of Interest (EOI) to the EDR. Analysis, tradeoffs studies, design engineering, planning, and costing activities that are exercised to establish a baseline design are part of this WBS element.
4.1 .3 The construction WBS element consumes the bulk of the GEM project costs. It includes all engineering activities between the EDR and project completion. All engineering, analysis, design, procurement, fabrication, assembly and installation costs are accumulated under this element. Facility, utility and subsystem project management costs that are unique to a particular subsystem are included under that subsystem's WBS element.
4.2 Level 3
4.2.1 Each of the three level 2 items will have six subelements corresponding to the six major subsystems of the GEM project. These are
x.1 Magnet subsystem level 3 x.2 Muon subsystem x.3 Hadron calorimeter subsystem x.4 Electromagnetic calorimeter subsystem x.5 Central tracker subsystem x.6 Trigger and data acquisition subsystem
The LOI may submit for consideration to SSCL options for each subsystem. As they are identified they will be appended after subelement 6.
4.2.1.1 Subsystems 1 through 5 shall include all hardware within the detector itself, all utilities and facilities specific to that subsystem and electronic channel costs. Electronic channel costs begin in the detector and end where data signals enter the main data storage system.
4.2.1.2 The trigger and data acquisition system includes the main control computer, data storage devices, and on-line data processing equipment. SSCL shall provide tape storage equipment and off-line computing facilities.
4.2.1 .3 The magnet subsystem shall include all structural support systems required for the magnet and the detectors such as the central membrane, detector cradle, and end supports.
4.2.2 Project management will be included in each of the the three level 2 entries as follows:
5.2.2 GEM 5.2.2.1 Research and Development (R&D)
5.2.2.1.9 R&D Project Management 5.2.2.2 Conceptual/Preliminary Design
5.2.2.2.9 C/P Design Project Mgmt 5.2.2.3 Construction
5.2.2.3.9 GEM Constr. Project Mgmt
level 1 level 2 level 3
level 3
level 3
4.2.2.1 Project management encompasses all administrative and management efforts required to direct the GEM project through
completion. This includes management personnel and technical staff, resource management, safety, and QA personnel, ancillary support contracts, travel, and supplies and expenses. Costs that are required to manage the detector project as a whole are included here. Subsystem management costs are defined at the subsystem level.
4.2.3 Interface Systems will be included within the level 2 Construction element (5.2.2.3) as follows:
5.2.2.3 Construction 5.2.2.3.8 Interface Systems 5.2.2.3.9 GEM Constr. Project Mgmt
level 2 level 3 level 3
4.2.3.1 Interface systems are facilities, installation equipment and non-standard utilities that are not provided by SSCL. They are not subsystem specific and are used by the collaboration as a whole. Items that are required for a single subsystem are listed under that subsystem WBS element. Examples of interface systems are compressed air systems, scaffolding, installation fixturing, transport systems, non-conventional cooling, detector emergency power, and detector safety systems.
4.3 Level 4 and below
4.3.1 Levels at 4 and below will be defined by each subsystem estimator as required. In general most subsystems should be listed down to level 5 or 6.to provide sufficient detail for a meaningful estimate. At this final level costs should be in the 1 DOK$ to 500k$ range in most cases.
4.3.2 Although the specific line items below level 4 are subsystem specific, the elements within the construction element shall be listed according the the following format:
x.1 Subsystem component 1 x.2 Subsystem component 2
x.n Subsystem component n x.8 Subsystem installation x.9 Subsystem project management
x.9.1 Project management and administration
x.9.2 Resource management x.9.3 ES&H x.9.4 Quality assurance x.9.5 System integration
4.3.3 Subsystem project management includes manpower for planning and control, Group or Division administrative personnel including supervisors and clerical support. ES&H and QA planning and controls, meetings, travel, reviews, developing plans and controls for detector subsystems and facility interfaces are also included. Procurement costs must identify office supplies, engineering service equipment and operating charges.
4.3.4 Interface Systems and Project Management will not be subdivided into the previously listed level 3 subsystems since they defined tasks that are common to all subsystems. Instead they are subdivided as follows:
5.2.2.3.8 Interface systems level 2 5.2.2.3.8.1 Experimental hall level 3 5.2.2.3.8.2 Surface facilities 5.2.2.3.8.3 Process utilities 5.2.2.3.8.4 Safety systems
5.2.2.3.9 Construction Project Management
5.0 Cost Matrix
5.2.2.3.9.1 Administration 5.2.2.3.9.2 Resource management 5.2.2.3.9.3 Environment, Safety and Health 5.2.2.3.9.4 Quality Assurance 5.2.2.3.9.5 System Integration
5.1 The cost matrix is the data set that will collect all information for the GEM cost estimate. All data will be input by each subsystem estimator in a format described below using the EXCEL computer spreadsheet. Each of the subsystem data bases will be compiled into a single spreadsheet that will be used to calculate total system costs and provide a mechanism for system-wide data analysis.
5.2 Table 3 shows that the cost matrix is actually divided into two separate data sets, a cost table (CT) and a supporting data table (SOT). This splitting of data is required to maintain legibility of the
printed information when displayed on a single standard sheet of paper. The SOT shall be located in the EXCELL spreadsheet next to the CT and vertically synchronized with the CT so that the WBS elements line up horizontally,
5.2.1 The CT contains the basic cost information for the WBS elements. Material and labor costs are identified in each of 4 main functional categories: engineering/design, inspection/administration, procurement/fabrication and installation/assembly. Costs are estimated in FY 91 dollars. Roll ups of total costs from subelements to higher level elements are performed by equations imbedded in the EXCELL spreadsheet written by each subsystem estimator. Labor rates, material estimating strategies, and contingency methodology are defined in subsequent sections.
5.2.1 .1 Engineering/design Engineering/design includes only labor for all engineering design, engineering analysis, reliability analysis, design layout, and detailing and checking of fabrication drawings. Documentation for performance and fabrication specifications, safety analysis reports, design reviews, assembly procedures and testing or system checkout procedures are also included in this category.
5.2.1 .2 Inspection/QA/ Administration Inspection/QA/Administration collects all labor costs to administer fabrication and procurement contracts, scheduling of production, production inspection, pre and post assembly inspection of individual components of the detector subsystem. Also included is engineering administration labor associated with supervising both onsite and offsite assembly, installation and system checkout. Quality assurance planning, inspection, oversight, and documentation costs are also accumulated in this category. In addition, this functional category collects all costs associated with administering the project at either the subsystem or detector level. This includes project management, scheduling, planning, costing, and activities associated with implementing ES&H requirements. Material costs for travel, supplies and expenses, office and engineering service equipment and operating charges for that equipment are also included.
5.2.1.3 Procurement/fabrication
Procurement/fabrication includes costs for detector component material, fabrication, tooling, and equipment, necessary to construct the GEM detector and supporting facilities. Purchased labor contracts to perform tasks associated with engineering, installation, or assembly are not included in this category but rather in the specific category that they are associated with.
5.2.1 .4 Installation/assembly Installation/assembly includes labor and material necessary for the assembly and installation of the detector subsystem into the experimental hall. Fixturing, handling equipment and test equipment are included in this category. Supervision and inspection of the activities performed in this category are included in EDI/QA.
5.2.1.5 Contingency Contingency for the GEM detector cost estimate shall be based on a standardized risk analysis. Each estimator shall perform the risk analysis identified in Section 8.0 and enter the associated contingency in the CT. Depending upon the particular subsystem being analyzed contingency may be applied at the lowest WBS level or at a higher subassembly level. It is the responsibility of the estimator to make this determination. In any case, the estimators are responsible for assuring that each and every component has appropriate and defensible contingencies applied.
5.2.2 Support Data Table The SOT provides important supporting data to the cost estimates. Estimators are required to provide all input in this table as well as the CT. The information contained in the SOT is essential for interpreting the cost estimates, defending them and temporally distributing the costs to permit accurate cost projections to the end of the project. Data columns for this table, shown in Table 3, are defined below.
5.2.2.1 No./units The number and units columns identify the basic cost unit that was used to determine the cost and the total number of the unit that was assumed. Typical values used for units are tons, meters"2, channels, system, assembly, and fibers. Almost anything can be used but the more descriptive it is the more helpful it will be to a reviewer.
5.2.2.2 Estimate type
Each WBS element shall be tagged with a cost basis descriptor which characterizes the type of estimate that was used. Acceptable data entries are as follows:
1) Bottom-up (BU) 2) Specification analysis (SA) 3) Parametric study (PS) 4) Revision update (RU) 5) Trend analysis (TA) 6) Expert opinion (EO)
5.2.2.3 Risk factors The risk analysis described in Section 8.0 is used to calculate contingency. In the three columns provided in the SOT, technical, cost and schedule risk factors are input. Standard ranges for these parameters are as follows:
1) Technical risk - 1 to 10 2) Cost risk - 1 to 1 O 3) Schedule risk - 2 to 6
In some cases the standardized risk parameters may not be appropriate. Higher values may be used as described in Section 8.
5.2.2.4 Dates Start dates and completion dates for all activities must be assigned to permit appropriate application of escalation factors to the base cost estimates. The month and year (numerical) shall be identified for the end dates of the four main functional categories, engineering ./design, inspection/QA/administration, procurement/fabrication, and installation/assembly. These dates need only be input at WBS level 4. Costs at only this level will be used to escalate costs.
6.0 Labor rates
6.1 Estimators shall use their best discretion in selecting the labor rates that should be used for their GEM cost estimates. In making their decision, the estimators should determine where the work shall be performed and use the most accurate information available regarding the labor rates for that particular institution. Detailed backup information shall be provided in the cost book supporting any non-standard labor rate used. Rates used shall be fully burdened with all associated costs.
6.2 In many cases the exact source of labor will not be known. In these cases standard labor rates are provided below and should be used selectively as required.
6.2.1 National Laboratories It is anticipated that the US National Laboratories will participate in many of the GEM subsystems. The following rates are average rates that may be used for work performed for any of these institutions. These rates include general overhead, support and payroll burden. If it is necessary to translate these rates to an hourly rate use 1800 hr/yr.
Type
Manager Secretary Eng in ear/physicist Desig ner/coordi nato r Senior technician Junior technician Craft
6.2.2 National average rates
Bate (k$/yr)
210 60 150 90 100 75 65
National average rates may be used for cases where the source of labor is completely unknown. If it is necessary to translate these rates to a yearly rate use 2080 hr/yr.
Type
Engineer/physicist Senior technician Junior technician Craft Machinist
6.2.3 SSC employees
Bate ($/hrl
62.00 50.00 38.00 25.50 25.50
Work performed by SSC employees shall be charged at the following rates which are fully burdened. If it is necessary to translate these rates to a yearly rate use 1800 hr/yr.
Type Bate ($/hrl
Manager Engineer/physicist Analystladm in istration Senior technician Technician/draftsman Clerks
6.2.4 Job/shop in Dallas area
61.55 36.10 23.13 23.13 17.27 13.27
If it is necessary to translate these rates to a yearly rate use 2080 hr/yr.
Type Rate ($/hr)
Engineer/physicist Software engineer Draftsman Junior technician Senior technician Average machinist Precision machinist
6.2.5 Contractor installation
47.00 47.00 26.10 18.00 25.00 30.00 39.00
For installation of equipment at the SSC site in Texas the appropriate Davis-Bacon wage rates are as follows. Rates are fully burdened. If it is necessary to translate these rates to an yearly rate use 2080 hr/yr.
Type
Crane operator Rigger Laborer Millwright Electrician Welder Pipefitter Carpenter Painter
7.0 Material costs
Rate 1$/hr)
26.64 24.28 13.23 22.35 20.04 24.28 21.50 22.35 15.31
7 .1 Material costs shall include all hardware costs for the entire GEM project. WBS elements shall be listed to comprehensively cover projected requirements for each subsystem and for systems that span the needs of more than one subsystem. All costs shall be based on FY 1991 dollars and shall have backup details included in the subsystem cost books.
7.2 Material costs include all procurement and fabrication for all GEM assemblies and facilities. This includes detector hardware, equipment, fixturing, tooling, utilities, test equipment, assembly equipment, computer hardware, raw material, and material processing.
7.3 Detector costs must also include facility and utility costs not provided by SSCL. These include, but are not limited to, gas systems, access and structures in the experimental hall and surface facilities, non-conventional cooling, power distribution exceeding the baseline, and emergency power. Safety systems costed by GEM include fire extinguishing systems, fluid spill control system, radiation monitoring systems, oxygen deficiency system and nitrogen inerting system.
7.4 SSCL will cost the following facilities:
1) Underground detector facilities Collision hall, shafts and tunnels Power and electrical cabling HVAC Cooling
crw CHW LCW ICW
2) Surface facilities On-site assembly buildings Shaft headhouses Utility buildings Operations buildings Storage areas/hardstands General purpose machine shops Power and electrical cabling, routing and
distribution HVAC
Cooling CP'V'J CHN LCW ICW
3) Site infrastructure Roads Parking Water and waste water IR power distribution
8.0 Risk Analysis/Contingency
8.1 Risk analysis shall be performed for each WBS element. Results of this analysis will be related to a contingency which shall be listed for each WBS element. Risk analysis parameters shall be listed in the SDT; contingency values shall be listed in the CT. Risk analysis/contingency methodology shall, in general, comply with the SSCL recommended technique.
8.2 SSCL methodology This method is based on estimator evaluation of technical, cost and schedule risk for every WBS element. For technical risk, the value of 1 implies "normal industrial supplied off the shelf item" and 1 0 is reserved for components "way beyond the current state-of-the-art." For cost risk values, 1 is used to indicate "vendor quote or catalog price for a specific item" and 10 is used for guestimates where no data is available. The technical risk value is multiplied by 2o/o and the cost risk by 1 %. The schedule risk value is set between 2% and 6% based on the perceived criticality of the activity. The resulting percentages are added together to establish the total contingency allocation for a particular WBS element. The minimum contingency percentage under this approach is 5% and the maximum is 36%.
8.3 Good judgement There may be special cases where the parameter limitations defined above are inappropriate. Some high risk elements may truly deserve contingencies greater than 36%. In these cases, at the discretion of the the estimator and the approval of the cost review team, higher values may be used. Justification for these cases must be provided in the estimator's subsystem cost book.
9.0 Escalation
Escalation factors will be applied to the base FY 1991 costs identified in each estimators cost table. Factors to be used will be supplied at a later date and will be implemented into the GEM detector cost by the cost coordinator. Subsystem estimators do not need to take any action except to include activity start and end dates for level 4 elements.
10.0 Subsystem Cost Books/Supporting Documentation
10.1 Each cost estimator shall provide a subsystem cost book. The books shall contain all information necessary to defend all data presented in the cost table. The cost books shall be available in preliminary form at the internal cost review and in final form at the time of the LOI presentation.
10.2 Contents of the cost book are as follows:
1) Cost Table 2) Supporting Data Table 3) System description
Brief narrative describing subsystem, performance, assumptions, and key technical issues
4) System drawings Top level assembly drawings which define system general configuration and interfaces with other subsystems
5) Parameter list List of key parameters (minimum of 20)which define the subsystem in sufficient detail to uniquely identify it to reviewers and to enable revision tracking of the design
11.0 Responsibilities
Cost estimating responsibilities are as follows:
Subsystem Responsible person
Magnet subsystem Muon subsystem
G. Deis F. Nimblett
Hadron calorimeter subsystem Electromagnetic calorimeter subsystem Central tracker subsystem Interface systems Project management
12.0 Review process
M. Rennich M. Rennich R. Barber C. Johnson A. Chargin
12.1 Prior to the submission of the LOI detector costs will be comprehensively reviewed to assure consistency, accuracy and completeness of all costs. Each subsystem estimator will defend his data before a review group of GEM collaborators. The review process is expected to last two days.
12.2 A chairman of the review process shall be selected and shall coordinate the meeting. Each subsystem estimator shall be present for all presentations to assure that all interfaces and subsystem interactions are considered. In addition several technical representatives of the collaboration shall be present to validate the assumed design basis and costing integrity. The chairman shall select these reviewers and coordinate their participation.
12.3 Subsystem cost estimators shall present their costs at this review. Vugraphs shall be prepared and presented to facilitate the discussion. The cost table, supporting data table, parameter list, and design description documents shall be discussed in detail.
13.0 Schedule
13.1 The schedule for the cost estimating effort is shown in Table 4.
13.2 Key milestone dates taken from the schedule are as follows:
Milestone
Subsystem WBS submitted WBS finalized Subsystem costs submitted Cost review Costs complete
Pate
9/27 1 0/4 1 0/1 8 1 0/25 11/1 5
s ~
"' i:: :;: i::
8
~ -.Q :I U)
::s ~~ .5 E
>-
= -.. 0 - .Q
~!I
.Q -
af .!!
" li; 0 'ti/ d: ::&
"' e .,, "' -Ci: .8 0 .. Ci.-' . .. .5
:ii fll
li; tl :i ~ "'~ iS coll w
i:: .!!' .. -Cl) 0 c .Q
Ci!! i:: w
E !
U) 0 Ill
ll: i::
Table 1. GEM cost matrix
5.2 Detectors 5.2.2 GEM
5.2.2.1 Research and Development 5.2.2.1.1 Magnet subsystem 5.2.2.1 .2 Muon subsystem 5.2.2.1.3 Hadron calorimeter subsystem 5.2.2.1.4 Electromagnetic calorimeter subsystem 5.2.2.1.5 Central tracker subsystem 5.2.2.1 .6 Trigger and data acquisition subsystem 5.2.2.1.9 R&D project management
5.2.2.2 Conceptual and preliminary design 5.2.2.2.1 Magnet subsystem 5.2.2.2.2 Muon subsystem 5.2.2.2.3 Hadron calorimeter subsystem 5.2.2.2.4 Electromagnetic calorimeter subsystem 5.2.2.2.5 Central tracker subsystem 5.2.2.2.6 Trigger and data acquisition subsystem 5.2.2.2.9 C/P design project management
5.2.2.3 Construction 5.2.2.3.1 Magnet subsystem 5.2.2.3.2 Muon subsystem 5.2.2.3.3 Hadron calorimeter subsystem 5.2.2.3.4 Electromagnetic calorimeter subsystem 5.2.2.3.5 Central tracker subsystem 5.2.2.3.6 Trigger and data acquisition subsystem 5.2.2.3.8 Interface systems
5.2.2.3.8.1 Experimental hall 5.2.2.3.8.2 Surface facilities 5.2.2.3.8.3 Process utilities 5.2.2.3.8.4 Safety systems
5.2.2.3.9 Project management 5.2.2.3.9.1 Administration 5.2.2.3.9.2 Resource management 5.2.2.3.9.3 Environment, safety and Health 5.2.2.3.9.4 Quality assurance 5.2.2.3.9.5 System integration
Table 2. GEM WBS hierarchy
~ ii !'"
g !II. ; 3 !!l ~ ~ ~ ii'
9/13 9/20 9/27 10/4 10/11
4 .. WB drafts WBS co~ plete flnallzed ...
Comp lie mbsysten costs
10/18 10/25 11/1 11/8 11/15 11/22 11/29
lnltlal s ~bsystem costs s bmitted
Beg n cost rev I w
Subsyst1 In cost Colloat subsyste h updates' omplete costs
Rev ii ~cost est!~ ates
. lnc1 rporate in bLOI
LOlsu •milted
4 ...
~ ... ·~ ...
~' 0
i~ ... ;; l! , "' .! Ii;!~ " ~ l:
'B V\ . ~ ... •
I~ ~M .. ~ " ~ ~ SM
I ~~ , "' ~IE ., <r r:
fl• j
j • ~ ... . ~ "' ~ ... ·~ < ...
~ "'E ..
" tt , 1t " !'e
• !~~
" B ... c. ~
l.S. ... :
l"f ~I~ e «';; ; ~
r~ -le w
• ~ ! :fl
"
• :
'i I
• • I
~1 ;
tl !
11 i
'" ; 1j
I
,i 1 •
1~ • I
:
,H 1; .~ • i
I i
~ ! :
t~ i;
0
i,
I ,;
' • ~
~
~
' i
Tentative AGENDA Gem Magnet Advisory Panel
SSCL---Dallas, Texas
Wednesday, September 25, 1991 (Directorate Conference Room-Downstairs Building 4)
9:00
9:30
10:00
10:30
11:00
Introduction
General discussion of the first report of the Panel
Discussion of action items:
Coil manufacture
Vacuum vessel
Fringe field calculations vs depth
11:30 Quantitative comparisons of fringe fields
with existing facilities
1:30
2:00
2:30
3:00
3:30
Session on cost evaluation
Comparisons with SDC costs
GEM magnet cost details
Session on schedule evaluation
GEM schedule details
BREAK
Comparison with SDC magnet schedule
A model for facility requirements
Thin poles for the solenoid
Thursday, September 26, 1991 (Physics Conference Room, Building 4)
9:00
9:30
10:00
1:30
3:00
4:00
Presentation of preliminary conclusions
Assignment of working groups as necessary
Working groups
LUNCH
Reports of the working groups
Executive session to write summery of meeting
Collaboration closeout
Gilman
Stefanski
C. Johnson
C. Johnson
P. Marston
R. Woolley
D. Etherton
G. Deis
N. Gober/C. Johnson
D. Etherton
T. Prosapio
P. Marston
Stefanski
Stefanski
Stefanski
Superconducting Super Collider Laboratory 2550 Beckleymeade, Building 4 Dallas, Texas 75237-3946
Physics Research Division
TO: Mike Harris
FROM: Ron Hoffmann
DATE: June 19, 1991
SUBJECT: Detector 2 Magnetic Field vs Bridge Crane?
Per your request, I contacted Jim Nelson of Edderer Incorporated, Seattle, Wa. regarding the subject question. Jim called back late yesterday afternoon with the following information:
Edderer has built radio controlled cranes for the aluminum smelting industry which operate with no problems in magnetic fields considerably in excess of the 50 gauss expected in our case. Jim said that while it is no particular problem, it is definitely something which should be included in the crane purchase specification.
cc R. Stefanski
~ --Superconducting Super Collider Laboratory 2550 Beckleymeade, Building 4 Dallas, Texas 75237-3946
Physics Research Division
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Mike Harris
Ron Hoffma~d'ef · September 17, 1991
Transport of 20 mm by 31 mm coiled copper bar
Attached is a summary of the legal and special pennit limits for transporting loads over the highways of the contiguous continental states of the United Stated. This information was compiled from the Permit Manual of the Specialized Carriers & Rigging Association (SSCL Library TJ1363). If special permitting is to be avoided, the summary indicates that a total load height of 13.5 ft, width of 8 ft (8.5 ft if we can stay out of Alabama), and length of trailer of 48 ft are the limits. If we use a low bed trailer (one with a bed which is 2 ft above the road), we can accommodate a cylindrical package which is 11.5 ft in diameter by 8 ft long with the cylinder axis being crosswise to the trailer. This package will accommodate 78 turns of a 3.485 m diameter coil of the subject bar for a total, one piece length of 853.98 m.
If the long axis of the package is parallel to the long axis of the trailer, the crossection of the package could be elliptical, 11.5 ft high by 8 ft wide, and 48 ft long. By coiling the bar so that the axis of the coil is 43.5• to the plane of the coil, the package will accommodate 284 turns of a 3.485 m diameter coil of the subject bar for a total, one piece length of 3109.36 m.
cc R. Stefanski
-- STATE HIGHWAY TRANSPORTATION LIMITS
STATE LEGAL LIMIT (ft) SPECIAL PERMIT LIMIT (ft) REMARXS WIDTH HEIGHT LENGTH WIDTH HEIGHT LENGTH
s.oo 13.50 113.50 16.00 16.00 150.00
Arizona s.110 14.00 117.50 14.00 16.00 120.00
Arkan•u s.110 13.50 113.50 20.00 17.00 NSL No Set Limit
California S.110 14.00 113.00 14.00 NSL 135.00 No Set Limit
Colorado S.150 14.50 157.33 17.00 NSL 1115.00 No Set Limit
Connecticut S.150 13.50 4S.00 16.00 15.00 120.00
Delawue S.110 13.50 153.00 NSL NSL NSL No Set Limit
D. OI c. S.l>O 13.150 46.00 20.00 NSL NSL No Set Limit
Florida S.150 13.50 4S.OO 14.00 15.00 NSL No Set Limit
Georei• S.150 13.150 113.00 14.00 115.33 NSL No Set Limit
Idaho 8.150 14.00 48.00 NSL NSL NSL No Set Limit
Jlllnol• S.150 13.50 153.00 14.150 115.00 1411.00
Indiana S.110 13.110 153.00 14.33 111.00 911.00
Iowa S.110 13.50 113.00 NSL NSL NSL No Set Limit
K.uuu S.llO 14.00 119.llO 16.llO 18.00 126.00
Iteotucky S.150 13.50 153.00 14.00 115.00 110.00
Loulalana S.50 13.50 59.50 lS.00 NSL NSL No Set Limit
Main S.150 13.50 4S.00 NSL NSL NSL No Set Limit
Maryland 8.150 13.50 4S.00 NSL 115.110 NSL No Set Limit
lluaachuett• 8.50 13.50 48.00 NSL NSL NSL No Set Limit
Mlchlfan S.150 13.50 153.00 14.00 15.00 150.00 IMIDDeaota 8.110 13.150 113.00 14.50 15.50 110.00
llllNIHlppl S.150 13.150 153.00 16.00 15.00 120.00 - s.110 14.00 153.00 16.00 14.50 150.00 Montana S.150 14.00 153.00 lS.00 17.00 95.00 Nebruka S.150 14.50 153.00 14.00 NSL NSL No Set Limit Nevada S.50 14.00 48.00 NSL NSL NSL No Set Limit New Hampshire S.110 13.50 48.00 22.00 18.00 90.00 New Jersey S.50 13.50 48.00 NSL NSL NSL No Set Limit New Medco S.50 14.00 157 .50 NSL NSL NSL No Set Limit New York S.150 13.50 48.00 16.00 13.92 100.00 See Note 1. North CaroliDa s.110 13.50 48.00 115.00 NSL NSL No Set Limit North Dakota S.50 13.50 53.00 18.00 18.00 120.00 Ohio S.110 13.50 113.00 NSL NSL NSL No Set Limit Oklahoma S.150 13.llO 119.150 16.00 21.00 NSL No Set Limit Orepn S.110 14.00 153.00 16.00 lS.00 NSL No SetLUDJt PeDDOyJvaDla S.110 13.50 153.00 16.00 14.50 160.00 Rhode loland S.110 13.llO 48.50 NSL NSL NSL No Set Limit South CaroliDa S.150 13.llO 113.00 115.00 NSL 1211.00 No Set Limit South Dakota S.150 14.00 153.00 24.00 NSL NSL No Set Limit Tennessee S.150 13.50 110.00 14.00 115.00 120.00 Tezao S.150 13.150 59.00 20.00 lS.00 110.00 u ..... S.110 14.00 48.00 111.00 17.110 105.00 Vermont S.150 13.50 4S.OO 14.00 15.00 100.00 Vlretnla S.150 13.llO 153.00 14.00 14.00 150.00 WuJUnaton S.150 14.00 4S.OO NSL NSL NSL No Set Limit West v1r111D1a S.150 13.llO 153.00 14.00 15.83 110.00 Wlaeoaaln S.50 13.50 53.00 16.00 NSL NSL No Set Limit Wyomlull S.50 14.00 60.00 18.00 17.00 1015.00
NOTES 1. New York lellal limit• do not Include the Bolland & LlocolD Tunoela 2. The leeal limit widths and helllht• ID some of the states Is for deolgDBted routes only. 3. The tranoport of all loada In exceA of tbe leeu limit• require opeclal permits. AD special permits
depend on the clearances of the chosen routca. Where special permit limits have been set, pcrmit1 for loads cxcccdln& thoee limits will not be issued regardless of the chosen routes.
Page l
AGENDA
Wednesday, September 25, 1991 Rm 526Bldg3
9-12AM& 1:30- 5:00PM
1. Introduction Gilman 9:00
2. General discussion of the first report of the Panel Stefanski 9:30
3. Discussion of action items:
Coil manufacture Harris 10:00
Vacuum vessel C. Johnson 10:30
Fringe field calculations vs depth P. Marsten 11:00
Quantitative comparisons of fringe fields with existing facilities R. Wooley 11:30
4. Session on cost evaluation
Comparisons with SDC costs D. Etherton 1:30
GEM magnet cost details G. Deis 2:00
5. Session on schedule evaluation
GEM schedule details N. Gober 2:30
Comparison with SDC magnet schedule R. Turkovich 3:00
6. The manufacturing process C. Johnson 3:30
7. A model for facility requirements T. Prosapio 4:00
8. Thin poles for the solenoid P. Marsten 4:30
Thursday, September 26, 1991 Rm 526Bldg3
9-12AM & 1:30- 5:00PM
1. Presentation of preliminary conclusions Stefanski 9:00
2. Assignment of working groups as necessary Stefanski 9:30
3. Working groups 10:00
4. Reports of the working groups 1:30
5. Executive session to write summery of meeting 3:00
6. Collaboration closeout Stefanski 4:00
GEM Magnet Reuiew Panel Members and Participants
Peter Clee, Rutherford Appleton Laboratoy (second & third session) Gary Deis, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Mike Harris, SSC Laboratory
~ Alain Herve, CERN (only third session) Coleman Johnson, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Robert Johnson, JBc Associates
"E. Klimenko, Kurchatov I RE Dennis Lieurance, General Dynamics Space Systems Peter Marston, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
1 Nickolai Martovetsky, Kurchatov I RE John Miller, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
xBruce Montgomery, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (first session only)
x:Dr. Roberto Penco, Ensaldo Compontenti Tom Prosapio, SSC Laboratory Robert Richardson, SSC Laboratory Dr. Gary Sanders, Los Alamos National Laboratory Dr. Ray Stefanski, SSC Laboratory Dr. Richard Stroynowski, Caltech High Energy Physics Francois Wittgenstein, CERN (only second session) Ronn Wooley, SSC Laboratory Phil Sanger, SSC Laboratory Don Edwards, SSC Labortory Jon Ives, SSC Laboratory George Mulholland, SSC Laboratory Ted Kozman, SSC Laboratory
PRRJ! CI PANTS
Howard Shaffer, Westinghouse Science & Technology Center Shaid K. Singh, Westinghouse Science & Technology Center Robert Swinderman, Pitt-Des Moines, Inc. Larry Darby, (Dr. Eyssa), BabCOK and WilCOK
SEP-19-1991 12:19 FROM MIT PLASAFUSION TO 4-72676-12147080006 P.02
Dr· Ray Stefanski Plasma Fusion Center Physics Research Div• Massachusetts lnatltutt ot Technology SSCL ,..
1 d Cambridge, Massachu1etts 02139
25!50 Bee~ eymea e Avenue TelephOne: 6171253-8100 Mail Stop 2001, Suite 215 Dallas, Texas, 75237•3946
September 19, 1991
Dear Ray,
I am sorry to have to miss the next GEM Magnet Meetinq, as I will be in Japan. I am therefore droppin9 a note to report on some pr09ress since the last meeting, and on our meeting yesterday with Gary Sanders, Gary Deis, and Richard Stroynowski. Based on that progess I also enclose a suggested modification of page 9 on the First Meeting Report.
We took the task after the last meeting of analyzing the "Figure 1" conductor to see if, as written, it could be • ••• defended on all technical grounds... n
OUr analysis indicates that transient heat input from, say conductor motion, would reach the superconductor in about 2.5 msec, a time very short relative to the heat removal capacity of the cooling tube. The lack of adequate cooling surface in the tl.lbe and the poor thermal diffusion in the helium are at fault.
If the superconductor were internal to the tUbe (as in the alternate conductor considered at the meetinq, there is no such coolinq limitation. The stability against heat input is nearly two orders Of maqnitude higher in the alternate conductor.
We came to the conclusion in our meetinq here yesterday, that it would be wise to change to the alternate conductor, whose stability can be rigorously defended.
Accordin9ly I su99est a mark-up of the first meetin9 write-up to be more compatible with the conclusions we reached at the later time. Note that the diwensions on the figure used in the draft were incorrect.
Sincerely Yours,
~\.>.~--< D.Bruce Montqomery · \ Associate Director tel 617 2!53 5552 FAX 617 253 0807
--/.,,.·
DRAFT 9/16/91
required for the magnet to discharge during a quench, and V d is the
vohage developed across the magnet during discharge.
• The quantity of superconductor and stabilizer used should give
very conservative margins in current and temperature (e.g. lop/le !
0.3 or 11 T cs i. 2K), where lop is the normal operating current. le is the
short sample limit, ~)1.e(
_ ... ..----...... -~--- .. -···· ....... .
~ ..• the temperature 111&%'9in between the operatin9 temperature and the current sharinq temperature.
The conductor pictured in fiqure l was chosen as the base case for further analysis of stability \lllder tranaient heat input (for example, conductor slippa9e.) Such a conductor can also serve as a baseline for cost and schedule studies on the basis of experience qained trom a number of other projects involvinq similar technology.
If analysis indicates insufficient stability, an alternate arran9ement of the basic components will be considered, in which the Nb'l'i cal:>le will be incorporate~ into the helium cooling channel.
Ground11lane insulatlOn
~~~~-,Copper stabifiztr
~i'5'"7~~~-- Forced-flow He cooling
~~~~~--Continuous tube
----- - ----- - ----- - ---- eou c:enterline
Figure 1
9
I ~ I I
I I
I I I I
I
~LABORATORY Physics Research Division
2550 Beckleymeade Avenue, MS: 2000 Dallas, Texas 75237 Tel: 214-708-6178 Tel: 214-708-6043 Fax: 214-708-6174
TELEFAX COVER SHEET
TO: PETER MARSTON
FAX: 617-253-0807
DATE:9-16-9! #PAGES f__.-6. (including cover page)
COMMENTS
You may remember one of the tasks at the last Technical Panel Meeting was to show the variance of the stray field in resnect to the different IR 's.
The importance of this work is building in momentum and would be submitted to Roy Schwitters for his comments at an early statge.
Can you please let me know if the figures could be made quickly according to the elevation data in the next sheet?
Will you be available for the GEM Engineering meeting on the 24th as well as the Technical Panel on the 25th?
Regards. V!ike Harris
Memorandum
To: Mike Harris
From: Jon Piles
Subject: IR Elevations
Date: 9/16/'Jl
Superconducting Super Collider Laboratory 2550 Beckleymeade Avenue, Mail Stop 2001
Dallas TX 75237-3946 (214) 708--0101
Fax: (214) 708-6174
Physics Research Division
Below is a table of elevations for the four IR sites. As understood from PB/MK these are the latest elevations for the proposed ring tilting.
Surface IR Site Elevation
IR1 IR4 IRS IRS
cc: Ray Stefanski Tim Thurston
<FT) 669 619 445 450
Beam Beam to Elevation Surface
(FT) (FT) 515 154 502 11 7 276 169 292 158
Printed By: Ray Stefanski
FLom: Dennis Lieurance (9/20/91)
To: Ray Stefanski
Subject:
OFFICE MEMO GEM Review Comments
9/23/91
You did a great job of editing! I only had one comment.
Pg 9, 2nd Para. Replace 1st Sentence:
Time:1:28 PM
Date: 9/20/91
"l'he conductor pictured in Figure 1 is technically adequate to assign a credible
cost and schedule on the basis of experience gained from a number of other
Pto jects involving similar technology."
See you Wednesday, Dennis
=~========================================~====================~======
Page: 1
SERC Dr R Slefanski ssc Laboratory
23 September 1991
Rutherford Appleton Laboratory TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT R65, Rm 1.08
Chilton
DIDCOT
Ox on OXll OQX
Telephone (0235) 821900
Fax ( 0235) 4451108
Telex 83159 RUTHLB G
Dir.,ct !,ine: 0215 44 6649 Local Fax: 0235 44 6863 c•mail: [email protected]'IC.Rl,.1B
l recc\ved all the papers for the above meeting and have read lhem briefly.
We have run \.he parameters tor Lhe GEM Solenoid on our optimisation program and find tnal lhe conductor crass sect.ion is not adequate for protection during a quenyti. Fol' SOkA it would be n<>cessary to have a quench parameter {G) of ? x HJ
1 which from t.he attached graph you will see is not po"sible far a temperat.ure ris<> limited to lOOK. 'l'hc conductor given on page 9 of the 'Report of t.he First Meeting of U"' GEM Magnet l'ldvlsory Panel' is more appropriate to 25kA but that would require 800 turns. (Maybe there is something we have not understood).
J\ second point of interest iu the question of helium in the conductor. We do not follow this argument, as stability is related to the stresses the co11 is subjected lo, rather than the level of stored energy. GEM Magnet has much lower stresses bolh thermal and magnetic than magnets built to date. Our finding is that with higher st.orod energy magnets, Wh<:>re the conductor is slzed t.o give full protection during quench, then it is more stable. That is, where the ri.,ld is lower and the superconductor is being run at <SO\ of short sample.
PcrhapR we could clear the~e poinla and confirm the parameters of the magnet early in the proceedings of Wednesday's meetin9.
Finally in Appendix A you have me down as attendin<;1 th" second meeting only. I am ab.Le Lo be at t.he thtrd meeting and already havo my ticket and acconunodation booked.
Look forward lo """ing you Wednesday.
' Peter Clee H~ad r.lf r:ngin~9:ri.ng O'\,;i~lon
Extended Page 1. 1 • J •
pc028
An establishment of the
S<:icnce and Engineering Research Council
1·5x1017
0·5x1017
- 32 -
Residual Resistivity Ratic~
• P <Rx) p(4.2K)
Copper
----
RRR 160 80
RRR --1000
------- 500
100 200 300 Temperctt.!!'S \.\1 ° K
Extended Page 2. 1
Figure 13 G(T111) vs Till for ::::?per .and .aluminii.un
•
Dr. Ray Stefanski Plasma Fusion center Physics Research Div· Massachusetts Institute of Technology SSCL k Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139 2550 Bee leymeade Avenue Telephone: 6171253-8100 Mail Stop 2001, Suite 215 Dallas, Texas, 75237-3946
September 19, 1991
Dear Ray,
I am sorry to have to miss the next GEM Magnet Meeting, as I will be in Japan. I am therefore dropping a note to report on some progress since the last meeting, and on our meeting yesterday with Gary Sanders, Gary Deis, and Richard Stroynowski. Based on that progess I also enclose a suggested modification of page 9 on the First Meeting Report.
We took the task after the last meeting of analyzing the "Figure l" conductor to see if, as written, it could be " ••• defended on all technical grounds... "
Our analysis indicates that transient heat input from, say conductor motion, would reach the superconductor in about 2.5 msec, a time very short relative to the heat removal capacity of the cooling tube. The lack of adequate cooling surface in the tube and the poor thermal diffusion in the helium are at fault.
If the superconductor were internal to the tube (as in the alternate conductor considered at the meeting, there is no such cooling limitation. The stability against heat input is nearly two orders of magnitude higher in the alternate conductor.
We came to the conclusion in our meeting here yesterday, that it would be wise to change to the alternate conductor, whose stability can be rigorously defended.
Accordingly I suggest a mark-up of the first meeting write-up to be more compatible with the conclusions we reached at the later time. Note that the dimensions on the figure used in the draft were incorrect.
Sincerely Yours,
~~~----< D.Bruce Montgomery · \ Associate Director tel 617 253 5552 FAX 617 253 0807
,,,,,-
DRAFT 9/16/91
required for the magnet to discharge during a quench, and V d 1s the
voltage developed across the magnet during discharge.
• The quantity of superconductor and stabilizer used should give
very conservative margins in current and temperature (e.g. lop/le !.
0.3 or ~ T cs .?. 2K), where lop is the normal operating current, le is the
short sample limit: ~~
.-----·------ --· . . -----
~ ..• the temperature margin between the operating temperature and the current sharing temperature.
The conductor pictured in figure 1 was chosen as the base case for further analysis of stability under transient heat input (for example, conductor slippage.) Such a conductor can also serve as a baseline for cost and schedule studies on the basis of experience gained from a number of other projects involving similar technology.
If analysis indicates insufficient stability, an alternate arrangement of the basic components will be considered, in which the NbTi cable will be incorporated into the helium cooling channel.
Ground-plane insulation
?;~~~@--copper stabilizer
~'4"'4-:;4~4--- Forced·flow He cooling
ffe.+.~~~~r--- Continuous tube
----- ------ ------ ------ Coil centerline
Figure 1
9
-·
Q) c:
Cl
i c:
§ 2l ~ e
8 Q) .i
~ ~ ::c .a
Q) N 3: "' <..> "
I :a .Q :J en 0 ..,. 0
i7 "' I
§ "' :J
'5 1;j .,, c:
.0
I .E
l ~ ·.;:; z en ~ c: :a 0 0 LL (.)
<..> 0
<..>
I E E
I E E
"' "'
I
I
Proposed GEM conductor
_.,-- Coilform
,'-- Ground-plane insulation
Copper stabilizer
36mm ~5555)))S'>>>>~ Forced-flow He cooling
~#~~ffl Continuous tube
6mm
-
0( Nb-Ti SC wire ~///;(.a,. /-l ___ Soft solder
~7LZ'.2
~20mm~ ~-----55 mm-------~
----- - - - - - - Coil centerline
N OSI
11.
" ['-..... "' m ~ " ..... N ..... IT>
E
.. t)
0 0
I- c: 0 .... en ---0
t)
OI (/) L E
.., UJ I- > !;'! en (/)
c 0 a L - ....
(/) :::J u.
E 0 0: u.
IT> If)
"' OSI
..... "' "' .... I
['-.... I
11. UJ UJ
100
50
0
-50
-100
GEM 1 --- Baseline with Full Pole
Field tG) on 117-foot surface
-100
.l
.2
.3
.4 • • • •
1.0 c =J
0 Z-oxis Cbeomlinel, m
CONTOUR LEVELS fl02 )
~
J_~ LI-
l'i .. I I
'· I a ; i:
S; g
; ... -l c
" c 0 .. ~ .. I -~ ..: • -:i.
.! • • .a ::
J l
100
ISl Q
'[:!
j " .... N .... en
F!
U1
fu I-
"' }-
"' e U1
ii'
~ ITT en (SJ
.... ~ .... ,[_ .... lb Ul
E
~
.i 0 c: 0 ..... (ll ·--0
4) (ll
<.i > (ll c: 0 <-
1-
100
so
0
-so
-100
GEM 1 --- Basel\ne wlth Full Pole
Field CG) on 154-foot surface
-100
.s
1.0
1.5
0 Z-oxis Cbe0111linel, m
CONTOUR LEVELS c~o1 )
~
..lK 1
' I,
100
i I ~ ~ i:
;; a
! ~ .. cl
.! .! J &. . .. . -ii! ! • •• Cl .. l l
~ ()_
" ['--.....
f ..... N ..... rn
D I-
~ in a ~
~ ll'i Kl ..... rn rn ..... I
['-.....
fu U)
e •
D u c 0 ~ (II ·--0 t) (II
'I> > (II c 0 (._
t--
100
50
0
-50
-100
GEM 1 --- Baseline with Full Pole
Field CG) on 158-foot surface
• 4
• 4
-100
.8
0 Z-axis (beomlinel. m
CONTOUR LEVELS f10 1 ) I
~
••
••
100
...LK.8
i I ~ ~ i
!t g
i ! .; : j I ;;: . .. . "' .! .. .. ,;; , J 1
GEM 1 --- Baseltne with Full Pole ...LK~
Ill .,, Field (Gl on 169-foot surface CL a
" 100 I
c:-.... I l()
~ a c:- .8 " .... N .4 .... ! .... "' ,
1. 2 I '\. ;;; e 50 I. 6
; • i ..,
0
i 0 c I- 0 ..
en ·-"U • ) .., 0 c
" en '- J
Ul .., !I :E > LU ...
I- en I Ul c )-
0 Ul -.. '-z .
0 I- ... - • Ul -so -::J z LL
a
:E
~ .4 ~ ~
0 .4 • (}'.
'-·;;
LL / ,;; • .,,
~ ~ M .,, J .,,
.... .... -100 l "' "' I .... I
c:-.... I -100 0 100 fu
IJJ Z-oxis Cbeomlinel. m CONTOUR LEVELS fl01 l
I
ft:A51'8)L\)'\
"' AcP-.\E\JEU~~ &f ~~'1Ce1~ ~ARAA..1~~~
" \.)t--)$1\-\S..'i)~~ ~Q\>~
o U>M.{)~\'~ UD\1°)\l~ Cos\~ sc.itmuLL-
e ~'"M ~ c..A~ACl'f"\f \$ AvA>\..A'3LL
·\~ C-ON~0c.ntt._
(> C#NChlul>/l.... ~'EM\/10R.. t~ 1~svs1i1vc....
Tb S~L ~JG L.... ~ ~c:j'"'""""'"
Q l"\f.l....tvo-\ \$ CON~NEJ> Wff>h/N ~
''co~n.N0c:·l,.'.'.s f\J/~s
--
o kJ.tif>l.L ~,~ ~~IS oi?- oPUAno~
~'~ ~~ c.U-Ovl-4..S
•
o S\,)Q(~4.~ S~£LO i~ ~~\110IS ~
1..-t~ Nr>N ~ O~~PT'aVE._ ~-vP
5 o 7 'fikQ.s. ~l\C\JU) %L 5\)~C-l£tvr
•
c S1"-tPl...\Fl.C..A1-10~ /Ml/\Jt~l~TI~ Df: jClk.1~
I~ ~ Lo"--' 0'\..' C'n ~
. ' -· ... • ---· -' -
-<> MA'1-.,I M\)/V\ ~~- €. \l'L loNS~q\d~
c N~X\M\)t-\ ~~~L-+J1pt f!-o~ p~~4LLtL~f>UCA\\~~
l\ t(
c \""if fli>oM. ~"-' f>UMA~fN) ii\)' l. ~ >~~ ~NO c~ ~,\L.. cvof!..u._
o $~\Lt\'{ ~N~lU~ 4..~~l. ~ )
1~~1\\Vl~ Tc ~J\l....._ U>N~~r
o (l)N.\\N c:1~ c.t>U ~ ?~4ss - Fl\ •Nl"O s, ""P\..L ,, ~eA \..t -i;i:t(.,. "
o l..D~4 ; _L.~·"'-Gil~'\.S ...
~ CN -<b'fiE_ ~'5\C-0 0~ A.l..L.A-{IA.:1.:~}
we~~ .Sw'"-'( e~1(f_
•
0 l)N - A)~<;;c;A~ I F B£t-\~ YI c-R-._., 1Ns~1T<v'L. TC ~A'--- c~-
.. : ~ .. • .. ··
9 A~f-~,:"~ -re ~111JO ~osl L1.lc£1.'-f
" FA J /..J_: tL It A.,/ (){JL. I/Ac c..·'tr'M ' ,..~JJ,.r ) .~
.- .
" \)}fftCt..>L't"y M-- .jO,~ ·
o ~\ffit.va...~ Of ~~ ~ S\J Ptlcvt->&hJd't-A- ~ Ceo\Al.J~ IAS!ll44L.
'( "' t> O\.C: \ ~ \~ <( t.ec.L~ s,
~ \) \('fM ll'fi')~ ~~
o rt£.btc.t\b~ r~?'AL W- ~lll.j
• ~>f"i"' 'bts1~~ As~.c~c:L
~~s~~
o S".c t>'b'lt:i~ Jtt"1~c:L rl•4'A. .'\l.A~L c::ao.:_' h\6tlCA~ <!>~ c.~~"c.t'tll. ~ ~~.4f&.'i
Gt:a.~ f COf.J ~~rs
o "-/AU-- A l.tlol.-'... CiJUIUJY., WI.~ N-
a- UNSthf•W 1e ll>ll.- ~NS ( ~vUlf
OtlsM'"" f;A11,.,) ~~/U ~ M~l . . . } , > J
- ...... • .~ .... . ->:
o <..ALWU.fi-/t•;,~A~;k.· ux> £fffchlll;_,~ .
eF i,-~cc5 .S~U/J 01->'i>vA:S ;,.;ccvd-'V ~ . I
_.,. .. -..
f~f!.iitlL Stf1EL.D .Sl{-11U>b£. /
.tJ6'ff) 61..1 £U.<-£... 6tJ ~
o lAul>£H'L. ·a>~ f SO:J-et1t,,.'LL ~ (i~AJsr · tfL.;,tzuC f)r.J J~~f):,£____ ;:; . . ~. ,,. ,/'/
·'
'. .
S-/fJ/'il I
1) CvT T#E Fk~L 9'~/k-l>F£ /4"
It/ .llx/;1'2.. G.JF~l"~.f/ /l;v.) ..i t?T. 4 ~~t'A'.L
I
~ KlSE G£CrtJ/f!!;. Cll.V fii:--
~tf)F° / ~/:~BJ..$"~,.,
M0t1v~l> 11.-1-t--. ~ J.//t,,(f. /'I/° _c:-
19V.) )15,f.SS.1;:-N&E_fl
1,V Mcw.ey.
/P T#~ s1:JE ~ #'S~~BiF.J;
~ 1-'fl.l~/,4.,'/1p~ ( r()l¥.S PDtt.
lb l'lkF~
"~ .t s~cr~
ff: 1--- Jf 0 Cf
Lt..
~~/'IP# ~""" 4.F vs;.>
·' .
/J fJ n
y'l}t. (IP~ //~~~#t. ~E ~)I
Ill/ HF##)" ST/t#crt'R.t JY S(l//Jt:Jer
~ ~ 11 fll/4/ sp!trc?P'~~ ro
MC VCl/11 7if! ~/( T ~
--- --- -
- - -
' . ,,
Superconducting Magnet Design Options for GEM
John R. Miller
National High Magnetic Field Laboratory Florida State University
Tallahassee. Florida
~
Magnet System Design Requirements
• Provide acceptable muon resolution • Ensure safe and reliable operation • Fit within the experimental hall • Conform to an electrical-power budget • Show feasiblity for on-site manufacture and
installation • Allow compatiblity with stray-field
constraints • Minimize the cost
MILLER 005 9.3.91
'
The superconducting magnet options
Preliminary studies indicated that, for comparable total costs, both superconducting and resistive versions of the detector magnet system could be designed to meet most requirements, except that resistive versions had difficulty in conforming to electrical-power budgets. Superconducting variations that were examined showed significant differences in projected costs.
MILLER 006 9.3.91
<
Superconducting solenoid with external iron Relative cost, approximately 1.9 (dominated by the additional cost of a 30-kt iron shell).
Coaxial superconducting solenoids (shielding by annular flux return between coils)
Relative cost, approximately 1.5
Single superconducting solenoid (unshielded) Relative cost, 1.0
MILLER 007 9.3.91
MAGNET DESIGN PARAMETERS
Centeral induction (T) Inner radius, cryostat ("free bore") (m) Outer radius, overall (m) Inner length, door to door(m) Measurement lever arm (m) Mass of windings (t) Mass of cold structure (t) Mass of cryostat vessel (t) Mass of iron poles (each) (t) Radial pressure on windings (kPa) Stored energy (GJ) Inductance (H)
Single 0.8 8.3 9.5 29 3.8 440 330 550 2950 260 1.8 1.5
Double Coil 0.8 8.3 12 29 3.8
500/700* 450 845 7000
390/-11 O* 4.1 3.3
*outer-coil/inner-coil
MILLEA 012 9.3.91
Common features for superconducting coil design • Primary cooling by thermosyphon loop attached to Al-alloy
coil forms
• Conductor topology requiring minimal development and adapatable to any of the design options
• Single-layer winding secured against slippage under axial loads by radial ribs on the coil form
• Epoxy-impregnated glass wrap on the conductor for turnturn electrical insulation and enhanced mechanical integrity of the windings (additional epoxy-impregnated
glass sheet between the windings and the coil form)
MILLER 008 9.3.91
l.9 cm
FIG 2
MAGNET NATURAL CONVECTION (THERMAL SYPHONJ LOOP
1000 liter HELIUM RESERVOIR --._
3-5 M
52 COOLING TUBES
~2.5 cm I t
2.5 cm
COOLING TUBE CROSS SECTION
U.9 cm DIAl·
7.5 cm DIA
~ t
15 cm DIA
l.2% QUALITY
10 cm DIA
~--
5 cm DIA
,, •,' ~
'··
.)
::;· .. : f·
. ~-;} ..
' .. ~;
.. ,. ·-;;,: '.
'.
~·.
L * LJKYUlicl\JlL/ ;::,r;:, lt.1Vl ;'.JL/t1t.JV1A lllJ lttt.LlU!VlJ,
l.05 ATM
" 0
IJ
Ii
50M
REFRIG. 2
1.2 ATM
1.3 ATM
3-5M
l 1
~BM
L
4.65K MAX TEMP -IN MAGNET
STORAGE DEWAR
LIQUID TRANSFER LINE
MAGNET SUPPLY DEWAR
• JI'. ' ' Jl: rl ·i. • •
CRYOGENIC ·i BUILDING ... I '.' .. ,
'
II . rir " ... '
GROUND ~EVEL
"
6 H LINE NA TUR AL CONVECll ON LOOP<
ceoo g/s fl ow)
'--------'------:_::~:i+---=---- 1.2 % VAPOR o0Au TY
20M
3 H LINE
.f-------UP 10--------.r !OM
. w.
MAGNE.T;
52 EACH 3/4" TUBES
FIG 3
L * LIQUID NITROGEN SY~'l'l::~M t>CHt;MA lllJf.
GROUND LEVEL
160K LITER LN OE.WAR
11 MPS CSUBCOOLER) II PU
II
11 11
0.8 mPe ---85K LN2
LN SHIELDS I 7
;. ·.~ .... : .... , •,
" I . •. ·:·:··. 11
.. ·\·. 11 .. ' ' \~ '. .
.. : ~ ~. . 1 I
CRYOG~NlC BUILDING 1: ~
. ~~-·
. : ·~· :
" 11 . " .. II :.\: . ··.
,,:_·
··.:::·:j _.·
· ..... '. ·~·::' .
..... . . ; _:~
.- 0.5mPa .{ 90K : ':"~ · CSUBCOOLEO,; ·· SINGLE PHA$E. LIQUID) . . .:
"•;
( ~· .
!-."·".
' ~_ ... ~; .. . -:·:~
.,·.· ... ··.' ·~ .
.· ' .. ;
:i :. ·. ''
-, .. -y; .
. '~ :; ·:_·:.:':
. \-FIG 4
L* CRYOGENIC BUILDING PLAN Vl~W (SHOWS ALL MAJOR EQUIPMENT)
COOL DOWN HEAT EXCHANGER
LIQUID NITROGEN CIRCULATING PUMPS CSUBCOOLERl
160K LITER LN DEWAR
1.5 KW REFRIGERATORS
60K LITER LHe DEWAR
I COMPRESSCJRj
l-8KiDs I
.:·:..
.. /
.. ;·,
... ';
: '.:.? •
. \: •I 1 .. .'r
" . ' ··1..: ··.
··• :'.:< .::~;
:11':· 12M ·,.
· I I :'~;
.>11 ;•'
1·'.
CONTROL ROOM .--------------------~····
ELECTRICAL PANELS
: : ' .~ '
24M .. · . '·'.·
CONDUCTOR TOPOLOGY
•Cable of Cu-stabilized NbTi composite strands mated to a Cu extrusion to meet simultaneously and conservatively the constraints for protection and temperature margin
'tdischarge ~ 200 s Tmax~ 80 K
T margin> 2 K
•Secondary helium channel internal to the conductor for enhanced stability
Near-zero flow rate Minimum number of electrical-isolation breaks for maximum insurance against leaks
MILLER 009 9.3.91
en c: 0 Q)
·- ..c +-' ctl a. 0
0 '"O Q) :t:: .... Q) fl)
Q) .!:::! E 0 Lo. a. .... ::::J a. 0 a. ::::J ·- E en -
0 en a> 0 +-' 0 a> I 0 (.) ....
a.. ::::J
::::J 0 :::::: '"C I-
..c c z 0 (.)
Proposed GEM conductor
012mm for forced-flow
He cooling
Copper Stabilizer
Nb Ti SC wire, 20 ea 1.6mm dia
soft solder
l 20 mm 36 mm
J 1 .. 6mm
i..-~~~~~-55mm~~~~~~~
Heat capacities at conductor components near the operating temperature range
-~ 106 Ct)
E ~- -- -- - . -. -- -----. -- --- -- . -- - ---. -- . ---- Helium (isochoric) """') -- 105 ctl Q)
I ()
;:;:::: 104 ·o
Q) 1 Cop~--------a. Cf) () 103 • - - - - -: - ~;uminum ·;:: -Q)
E :::J 0 102 >
5 6 7 8 9 10 Temperature (K)
MILLER 002 9.3.91
Allowed stabilizer current density vs. maximum allowed temperature during quench and dump
~ 9m f J2(T) dT = J~Tj = f y~~;) dO = U(Om).
0 o,
20,.--~~~-,--~~~-.-~~~---,~~~~,.-~~~,
15
~-'::;:
"' N .. "' g 10 ~
~ :>
-\\ " . <j~ \Q ""'
~Lut.\\tl\UIA Po ~
5 RRR=540
100 200 300 400 500
TEMPERATURE 9 ( K )
MILLEA 003 9.3.91
Contribution of conductor components to the protection allowable for conductor current density.
--. (\j 25 E
~ ~ 20 I/) c: Q)
"O 'E 15 ~ ::I 0 ..... 10 ~ ::I
"O c: 8 5 "O
~ <( 0 -
0
,... •
/ •
/ , / copper -
/ , / helium --~----------~-------- -----NbTi
20 40 60 80 100 Allowed maximum temperature (K)
MILLEA 010 9.3.91
Pressure vs temperature for He with constant density of 130 kg/m 3
so--r-~-t-~~-t--~-+-~--+~~_J__
40 <? a. e. 30 ~ ::J
~ 20 ~ a.
10
0 /
0
/ /
/ /
20
/
/ /
/ /
40
/ /
/
60
/ /
/
80 Temperature (K)
/_
/ /
100
MILLER 001 9.3.91
COIL WINDING SCHEME COIL CLAMPING PLATE SPRING WASHER REMOVE. AFTER EPOXY CURING. '.
----------------------------7-----------j"""""'-"""•------- @ ~
@
®
~
'
• -FILLER ~ PIECES
·~ ~ ·~ ~
CONDUCTOR --o~
' SPLICE JOINT
- COIL TO BOBBIN SHEAR RIB
' ' ' ' • __________________________________ ,.,,,.:-.,....,._ ____________________________________________________________ 1
:z: 0
::z: ~ c lXI
CJ E- ::z: I:!=! s
::z:
u :s c,:)
~
a..~
c
i:c..:J C?Jc
cc
::!!!: Eb
Ct::
en ~~
c ...._ §!
......10
=:J
0 -~
8
8:::>
c,:)
:z: i:c..:J ... =
' ... ; __:)
0 u ;a
i ::z: UJ Ci5 CJ
~= ca:S ~ ~
C) ......
..... ~
......lr...u ~
.8a 0
•..
30000 0
7388
n m (B -,'\ ~-'\ \
I -R 9500
,_ / ---/ ,_ /)\-R 8000
I\ I I Ii-END POLES \ I I
\ I rlOOOO
I I
I - -
I h rf-LR 2500
¢ 1s927 I ¢7400 I I I
I I 500
- -- -- - 0.00 I I
¢ 19000 I I I
I I I I
I L__ I I I \
I/ I
\, \
~; ~•1! .,.. ....
' :• s;; ' --.it ........ ,
"f' TIJ ' ' ' ' ' " ' w ' ' ..... yr--- --Vy 8-30-91 CENTRAL DETECTOR
SUPPORT CYLINDER NOTE: POLE SUPPORT
NOT SHOWN
----
V7/ ----v ~"""'\I
457
LfJ N LfJ
TITANIUM AXIAL SUPPORT RODS H l~
7~Jo-m i,.I ~MM....+-J.-...., \, I 7388 I II ·I OUTER CRYO
TYP. 16X
OUTER LN SHIELD
BOBBIN
COIL
INNER LN
INNER CRYO 100 'In RADIAL SUPPORT BLK ROTATED INTO VIEW
50 --niCENTRAL
MEMBRANE PLATE
DETAIL A SCALE
i.-1000M M----!>oi
8-30-91
N (!) N
lil
" LfJ
¢100
ALLOWANCE FOR THERMAL SHIELD
RADIAL
~~~~~RT DETAIL B SCALE
i.-1000 M M---t
8-30-91
" N '¢" 0 N
" N ("') 01
I
\ I \
./ ,-
" N (1)
co
'\
\
J
co 01 ("') N
~
c:i I
Cl en I
co
co 01 to
TITANIUM ROD END
BOBBIN
3063
BOK INTERCEPT
TITANIUM RADIAL SUPPORT ROD TYP 16X
0-----
'E:J-1 1==:' p~:::===~ AXIAL SUPPORT ROD I
TYP 24X
SECTION SCALE
-IOOOM~
8-30-91
SPHER !CAL WASHER
RADIAL SUPPORT
BLOCK
BOBBIN
L * COIL WINDING
COUNlER WEIGHT
CONDUCTOR REEL
lENT COVERING WORK AREA
,5 M
SSC DETECTOR 2 MAGNET FABRICATION FACILITY
' . -1 ,, --- - ~ --)--1'"---n / ~ ~ -
"'"" , Il ~ , ( ' -() "'~ EJh -- 0 - --! --=rr \_____ _/ ... ·=v ·"~
'
\----o - --=e=- I
• -ISO "ETERS
,, .. L.. • " fl9WlR~ __, j .:!!fu ~)y1"7zz~zzn k;!PhJz~zzT.ZL2z -~ $)/hz2b£§!7J7),~zi"2z~ .
I 41.5 "ETEf
DEL lYERY AND STORAGE' AREA ACCEPTANCE TESTING
35 x 50
SHELL flJlRICATION AREA
35 x 35
COIL WINDING ANO CURING AREA
35 x 35
~AGNET ASSEMBLY ARU
35 x 35
MAGNET TEST AREA
25 x 35
SSC DETECTOR 2 MAGNET FABRICATION FACILITY
AREA #1 - DELIVERY AND STORAGE ARENACCEPTANCE TESTING
•CONDUCTOR DELIVERY AND TESTING •BOBBIN SECTIONS, VACUUM SHELL SECTIONS.RADIATION SHIELD SECTIONS ........ INSPECTION AND STORAGE
•COMPLETED SHELL STORAGE (NESTED)
AREA #2 - SHELL FABRICATION AREA
•WELDING •GRINDING •GRIT BLASTING •STRAIGHTENING
AREA #3 - COIL WINDING AND CURING AREA
·SEGREGATED FROM FABRICATION PROCESSES AREAS FOR CLEANLINESS
AREA #4 - MAGNET ASSEMBLY AREA
•SUPERINSULA TION INSTALLATION •LEAK CHECKING
AREA #5 - MAGNET TEST AREA
·ROLL MAGNET ·WELD ON SUPPORTS ·COOL DOWN .
•FURTHER TESTS
OVERALL FACILITY DIMENSIONS•LENGTH-180 METERS ·WIDTH-35 METERS ·HEIGHTH-41.5 METERS
•
SHIPPING/ RECEIVING DOCK
AREA 1 DELIVERY ANO STORAGE AREA/ACCEPTANCE TESTING
0
COMPLETED SHELL STORAGE
FORKL !FT·· ACCESS
~/ I I
I I
L
0
-~ I I
I I
. _J Ir- -~ 11 SHELL SECTIONS 11
NESTED 1
•
CRANE SUPPORT COLUMN
AREA 2 SHELL FABRICATION AREA
SHELL SECT JON
•
WALL SE PARAT JN G F AB AREA FR OM WINDING/CUR ING AREA
" •
ADJUSTABLE HEUGHT CRANE
SEPARATION WALL
AREA 3 C 0 IL WINDING AND CUR ING ARE A
BOBBIN
CONDUCTOR REEL
SCAFFOLDING
'
LEAK CHECKING
AREA 4 MAGNET ASSEMBLY AREA
~ CRANE SUPPORT
SUPER INSULATION INSTALL AT ION
' AREA 5 MAGNET TEST AREA/ROLLOVER TRANSPORT PREP
GANTRY CRANE ACCESS
SUPPORTS -WELDED ON
REMOVABLE ROOF SECTION
MAGNET ROLLED FOR TRANSPORT
COOL DOWN IN PROGRESS
•
1 0
WIN RA
MAGNET SUPPORT STRUCTURE CROSS SECTION
Jr
" I .
: 7m -· ITER DING JIUS
I~ ,-u u -
..J ~ J1 - - - ~
'
... 1.0m - I . 1
I RIBS TYPICAL
OUTER WINDING
COIL LENGTH CYLINDER 13.0m 44.5mm
u u
-
.,II -II - - - - ~ ~ ~
2.0m I
GUSSETS TYPICAL
- ~
J1 ·..r ~ ~ - ~
_l '
I
f 8mm ER DING INDER
WINDING 13.25m
RADIUS STRUCTURE LENGTH
GEM BASELINE MAGNET
• Conservative
• Demonstrated technology
• Simple/reliable
Design to schedule considering logistics of on-site fabrication
•••
INlllJ!Alm All'I LOID Cll COILS Z9 ,. HOOP SIRESS • .l<IMPo
JHIOQI I I -·· _, 10 Mr ' -lie POii rc•:i lOll 101" allD 1MSS -Ill rD CllYSIAI ( 111111111 C11 llUlll lllll • - t!Slll
8Allflf:l llUON CHAMBERS
CENIRALIDCT[CIORS
JOOOI
16 MODULES e • IOI EA.
EiC> CAP llUON CHAMIERS
11 MODULES ~ • 101 EA.
SUPPORT POINTS
GEM GLOBAL SUPPORT SCHEME
I
-·IQ.IS uP TO JOOOT EA. (10001 FOR IHIN POL[)
llOVAllLE llOIMT
ISi
ISi
e
'" m l!8 151
.., er
jL
z CJ ... .... CJ IC _, ...... ~~
151
er
.,, m CD CD
• ISi ... er _, ISi IC
::c ISi .... "' z c ... .... u "" :c "' u "' a:: "' "" z "' ... z ca: :5 :::> > .... ru '.:::
I-
.. ISi
:> ~
CD " . .. IX-
UJ ...J CJ Cl..
~
a: ...J ..... a: ~
UJ 0 CJ Q.
...J .. ..... '- CJ 0 Q. Q.
L..J
:I .. '-.. D I! .. .t::. <> c 0 :> :c
a:
I!
J
CD
'-., .t::. ~ ., 0
..._
0 -'
~
a: ::c ..... ~
0 c ., ., U1
> z CJ c a:
., .... '-
:c ..... ::i ~
u ..... '- .. ~
.... 0 c U1 ::c ~ 0.
., 0
u ., 0. '-
ID U1 a: :> .0
I
L!I .... U1 Ii
.. z 0 ..
0 .... U1 ~ '- :c
c oz .. UJ
., z a: .0 z .... ::i u-1 e ., cc
..._ :> I-
., '-.t::. ~
_J
ru " u c CL.
- - .. z
E c u z
CJ 0
.... f;] :>
cc :c .....
0 ..... 0 a: -' 151 .... ....
UJ :c:
0 .... a: ::c a: "'
,_ cc _J ..... cc ,_ UJ 0
_J ..... Cl w
., ~ "' .,,
"' .,, m "' :>
-e "' er er ID ID ID 'O ., ~
a:
It I I
I ,, ·"- ~
, ;
~ r>lfi! p,..,,,, ...
I I I ... - I I or.l C.011. CoN<j?«Sf~ ..... .... .,_ ~- .,_ '<----l !
I ' I
- t•\v -ill'•D ~ ...
I I
""'"6---. _11- . t------ -I
' I I --12__ .
I . ! A I
T ! -- -· ,_ -- -·~· • 't:. ' /' .::--... . ..
"'' I / • • a,_ t I I tJ I o· / -....... ' " . .
(Oii. I . . -" . ·, I • I!' MOO
'
"; ......" r. -- '· . I I . '(·
I I •I.. ~ '\. ' j ·a '\' '\'
-'\. •
' I
•10•
I ! \: \. 1·r,--1 \, '\: • I I I .
'\i \: I .. -,._, • l .
\ \....;. ·1>11r D I
\: \: ... - -----'I& I ! -1n
\ I \ i : I I
' !
\! . ' \ ' '
• \: . •
·28 \ \ ~ I ·\n \
I ' ·'. I ' '
I
' I
I ·"'1'i
\· . ' I . • . • . \ i4 ...
.'
\: .
··"--- r_ ' , ,·" ~ ' I ..;,, _ v ... -
' UIK
I . I
-c.. --' J '
I ·Ln ; •
-----·----·--·------
GEM Conduator Poro••f•rt
ALUll. THERllAI. MASS
ST STEEL CONDUIT
CABLE 480 STRAND
7.62DO'c• ( 3 In. )
2.5400 •• ( fl In. )
I = 52.5 kA "= 408
2.541; c• ( i \n. )
1.5532 c• ( 2.51 In.
L• = 55.92 • = 2201.1 In= 183.415 II Cable Area = 285 .... 2 Vaid Fraction= 30 S
Cand. Area a 199.5 ••·2 CABLE CURREMT DENSITY• 114.2 A/...,2 No. of strands = 480
STRAND Dlo = .723 .. cu/sc = 3 : I le= 388 ( 2 T, 4.2 K)
lop = 109 ( 28 S ) g/• = 3.435 ( 2.2& lb/1000 It )
Talal Cond Length • 22815 • ( 74853 It ) Total strand Longlh • 11.09 • 10•1 • Total strond ..,.1 = 38.1 • 10-1 g Total Conduit "'' • 31.3 TonllOI ( 90.658 lbs ) Alu• Area = 40.5 c.-2 Alu• Val = 92.4 .-3 Alu• ..,.1. = 255 Tonnes Talal Cand "'' • 332.4 Tonnes
8x10B~-~-r~-~r---i-~--,;--~-~~~~
7x1oB+-~~-+-~~--t~~~+--~~-+-~~-1-~~-Y:V'
6x1e>8 I I I I I I ~ /I
(;' c ~ 5x1a8 I I ;: I I ~ I 'I 0 > A
• ~ 4x1o' I ; yf w I I ,g I I ,, l 3x1o' I r , "' . • Ii
rn I I I"· f ? < -I .,·,er r t • >"
I 'I , S.-1 ·. ··f I 2x108 I I , _ , ~~ ,.·:-··' .•
1x1a8 J I ~ .... ~.! .. ·· I I I
Ox100 l ,.·-;--, c;~ 0 I I I I I I I I I ,,,,,,,,I 1 I i i I
50 100 150 200 250 300 Temperature (K)
Copper
- Iron
Nickel
- Niobium
--Titanium
Tin
Aluminum '.
Teflon
Heffum:130kg/m"3
- - Helium:150kg/m"3
"
GEM MAGNET TRUDEL I . 0 TRUOMP • 35 s RRR 40.0
~
'.::l.L ~
w a: .::J 1--er a: w Q_
.L w I-
3. 8 E ' ' ' I I ' I ' ' ~ ·= I I ! I I I I I I I I I 3 3.6
3. 'i
3.2
3. llJ
2.8
2.6
2.'l
2.2
2.0
l. 8
!. 6
l . 'i Uil I
~--~---------------1---------------1--------------
- - - - - - - - - - - - - .I - -> - - - - - - - - - - - - "" - - - - - - - - - ... - - - • - .. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - .I - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
' ' ' ~-J---------------J-------·-------~---------------J--------------1 I I I
' ' ' _____ J _______________ J _______________ J _______________ J _____________ _
I I t O
'
-----~-------~---------------~---------------~---------------~--------------
' I I I I
_________ , _______________ , _______________ , _______________ , _____________ _
' ' ' ' ' -----------1---------------1---------------1--------------.-1--------------
• ' ' ------------~---------------1---------------~---------------1-----------i--
------------4---------------4---------------4---------------~--------------' ' I I I I _____________ j _______________ j _______________ j·--------------~--------------1 t t f
' ' I I f t
-------------~---------------i---------------~---------------~--------------0 '
' ' -------------~---------------~---------------~---------------4--------------, '
J.2t I I ' I I I I I I I I I I I I I 0 0
I i j I I I I t -j
102 . 2 .8 .'\ .6 I. 0
TIME !Sl
GEM MAGNET TRUDEL I . 0 TRUOMP • 70 s ARR • L/0.0
~
~
w a: ~ I--a:: er_ lJ .J Q_
z w I--
s.0.---.----.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
'LS
lj. 0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
I. 5
101
I. 0 0.
' -----------------,--- --------------,-------------------,------------------
------,-------------------,-------------------,------------------
-----------,-------------------,-------------------,------------------
' ' ' '
_______________ , ___________________ , ___________________ , _________________ _
' ' ' --·-------------,-------------------,-------------------,------------------
---·-------------,-------------------,-----·-------------,------------------
' ' -----------------,-------------------,-------------------,------------------
102 .5 I. 0 I. 5 2.0
TIME ( s)
(9 (9 -•
0: 0: 0:
•
-
N . m
I I I I I I I I I - " - - • - - - "I· - - - - - - r - · - - - - r • - - • .... T - .. - • - .. ·1 • - .. - • ... • r - - - · - .. t • • • .. • • '"I• - - - • - .. , .. • - • -
I I I I I I
' . . '
0 , 0 1 I I ,. ............ , .......... r······r·-···-1··----~-----··r······r--·-·-,----···r···-
• I I I I I I ........ , ............ ~ .. -- .. --,.-----,.•·--·-~·-····-r·•··•• • • • '
' '
• .
' • ' ' .......... , ............ r····
' ' I t I I I 1 I • • .. • • T • .. • .. • .. '"I .....
!SI
(f)
OJ
N
···r······r···---,.------~---···-r······r···---, .......... , .... .
N N . N N N N
( )! )
CD
N
N ...
([)
w L -I-
ISi •
N
I - (I") + .... "
,... •• II)
f) r-- 15? c LJ') x (.) -on ::> - _J
• II... f) ID ..... c .... z 0 ...., II ex +- Ole ..... Q ' - (/)
0 :r E z ISi 0
" - u '-m -0 com LL.. Q. + a: w 0 19 c !S>I (/)
~ • . a: ..... _m ::> > 0
• ..... 0... - lJ') z
0 a: ... • u z: ::c :I w I- 0 (.!) ....
-c ::c 0 u ISi -
• ISi
ISi co <D :r N ISi co <D :r N • - ISi • • • • • • • • • • ISi N - - - - - -{W z
GEN --- Thin Pole Option~: Ca~e 2 ,f ~
MITMAP Vl.0 8/14/91 18:26 1
Contour I • 0.008E+00 Delta • 5.1116Sf+00
. 0 ~ I I J ., 7 J /'I I / 7 '; 7 '7' >' . ~ I I L
.8
6
4
2
0
8
6
Lt
2
0. 10 1 .5 1 . 0 1 • 5
A I ml CONTOURS OF CONSTANT FLUX
2.0 . :I I
' • I a •>«!'""""""' .. -~ ·~··
........
(S)
N
('I") '
(T)
u N* .. ,....
" co~ "'
lf) x 0
_.,, ::::> - _J
LL.. •
" • c .... ..... 0
- II
z a:
~ c:no I-en
Q ' 0 -:14 E z IS) 0
tl -'-111 w
0 COCf - LL.. Q.. II.I
a: 0 SI
c cs.1 I ff)
cc .t: • • t-
_m ::::> 0
·> ..... • ~
Cl.- U1 ..... 0
a: ... • u z:: ::c 6 ll.J I- .... (.!) -c
l: 0 {,) -\S) -
• ISi
\S) ro <D :r N \S) ro <D -:14 N • • • • • • • • • • • -\S) ISi
N - - - - - -(W z
GEN --- Thin Pole Option': C~'e ~
MITMAP Vl.0 8/14/91 18:25 Contour I • 0.088E+00 Delta • 5.073f+00
2 0 j I I I ) J I ~ I I '7 > I I > I I :::::- I I I • I II 117 ;>
l. 8
1. 6
1. 4
1. 2 -E
- 1. 0 N
.8
.6
• 'i
.2 10
1
~ I I I I I I I 'I'''''"" IU • i I I
0. 10 1
I .5 l~.0 1.5
R t ml CONTOURS OF CONSTANT FLUX
2.0
-e
N
GEM --- Thin Pole Option': Co'e 5
MITMRP Vl.0 8/15/91 9:57 Contour l • 0.001E+00 Delta • 5.07qf+00
2 . 0 ~ I I ( } J I I I 7 I I '7 '; '.7 '7' :>-' I ~ I I L
1. 8
1. 6
1. 4
J. 2
1. 0
.8
.6
. ...
.2 10 1
r,i 1 1111111111111111111 ~- I ' I
0. 10
1 .5 l.0 1.5 R I Ml
CONTOURS Of CONSTANT FLUX
2.0
.. 0 ... ~ ... £ ;
.. 0 ... '3 ... " ~ ;
l!!
IC
' lC :JI
,,. N ;;. N
"' ... ~ N ... "' .. ... a. a: lC -z
.. ., IO ,,. • . • . ...
.. ., IO ,,.
..; • • •
N .. ., IO ,,. "'- . • . . • . .... 1• I z
N .. ., IO ,,. "'- . • • . • • .... -I• I z
.. ,,. N
0 ;;. ... N
'3 ... " ~ ; "' ... ! ~
N ... i "' ' ..
...
; ' :IC -z
•
'! N
.. ,,. N
0 -Ill ... ... N
;z £ ., ; "' -- ...
'! =~ ! ~ N ...
-..,~ j "' "' • ...
"' a. i ~ -
-! z
•
-i...~~~~~~i..,.... ...... +...~""'"" ...... -'-!~~!-'-' ...... r"'
: ' . . . : ' . ·-·· ··-···· -··-··--·········-····-------· ......•. ·····--··· . . ' ' . . . ' i i i i i i i i : : : ' .
I j j I j •-• ••-i••••-••+••H•••·•••••-••i•-U••-i-o•••••••••••oOoo.;oooo-oo «> . ' . . ' ' .
l 1 l ! i 1 j i i i i i ; ;
------...i-------.i.. ........ t .... ___ ; ______ _J., •••.••• t ....... .,i •••• -.. "° • l l l l ; l l c . . . ' . ' : : : : : : i j i i i i
·-····-i····-··+····-···~--·--··:·-····-+· .. --.. ·~·······~·-··-·· r i i i i i i i : : : : : : :
______ j _____ ,.l ........ L ... -.. !. _____ J, ......... L ...... J .... ___ N
i i i i ! l I : : : : l ! : -.
ai
! I I i ; ! :
• Ill • ,,. ,.:
1!11
N7 • -. - •
-+'~~ ...... ~~!'-'"~~~~~~~~~~~~..,...· N
! I l ! ·-.... -. . . --· ····i·········-~- -.----·~· ;..---··'t ......... -~. ·-.. Ill
! . ! i i
. I i i . ' ' . . . ·--- ·-·;··-······'··········~····-···-'-·--·····•·······-~··-.. II e i i i i i i ! ! ! ! ! j ! ! l ! ! ! -····-·:··-······!······--··:--··-···:········:--·····-:··-·· ""
.. oO
; : ! l ! : ! ! i ! i ! l ! ! ! ! ! I I i ; t i .. • ,... • • .. • ui
llll
.. .. . ..; ._ N • ,,. -
GE" --- 1h1n ,ole a,t ions• Cet1 l
HIJHAP YJ.8 8/26191 23•28 2.11 ........ ~. l. . .. . l . •
1.8]
1.6 [ l.'1"1 I I-
1.2., I .. • I.II., I .. ...
.8., I ..
.6 "I I J-
• 'I ., I .. .2 "1
18' I J-
"· ' . . • • I I • • • I
•• 11111 .5 1.8 1.5 2.8 ft I •I
ElfftfNIS
GEM --- lh1n Pole ••t1ons: Case 3
HITMAP Yl.8 8126191 23• 211
8.11 !
"I.Ill ! . ~ , _______ ............ ·-·-·-- ·-·-····-·· -· -....... _____ _. ______ .... ·-i ! j : : : l : ;
6.8 --········-·. ---: ·-. ···-. ·-·. ··· f-····· ... ·-- ---:---··· ........ --l l !
= s.a ~ i ! ••••••••••••••••.,-•-••••-••••••••~••••H•••••••• •-t•-••••••••••••••
i i i .. '1.8
3.8
111· 1
2.8
••
~ i i ·--·············r-····-········r···········- r··············· .............. ---!-----------····t-·---········-· --···--·---·-··.
! ~ i j I
u•••••••••••••••t•-••••-••••••••i••••••••••••••-••'•-••••••••
18' .s 1.8
Zf el 1.5 2.8
GE" ·-- 1h1n Pole Oot 1ons1 C111 l
HITMAP YI.I 8/26/91 23t21 c.e ... I • ··-· •••• • 1.17•••
2.11 J I '1 ~ I J' I) I /7'7 ;7 :? '::::::::-=t 1.8
1.6
I. 'I
1.2
• - I.II ...
~ ..
.8
.6
.'I
.2 1•' I. l ,'I''
8.
., . 6.
5.
'I.
3.
2. 1e·1
I.
•• .S I.Ill 1.5 ft I •I
z.111 18'
CONIGlllS Of COISIAlll fLUI
G£H ·-- 1~1n l'ole 8ot1ons• C••• 3
HITMAP YI.I 8126191 23•21
------·-·+-·-····-··i·--·-·····i·-········-+ ···--·· ~--·-·-····· ! ! ! ! ~
i~· l
1--·-·-····+·· ..... - . ·1--········i· •· · · · · · · ·· +-- ···-··I•···--·· · ·· . . . . . . . . . l l i ~
I•-•••••••• t •• •••··-•• t-· ••••••• 1" • • • • •• • • • •t • - • ·-•• ~ • •• • • • • • ·• • ! ! ! ! ! , ........... +···· ·-----:---·-····--:--·-· .... ··+--- .. --. : .......... . I I I I I : : : : :
•.••.••.•• .j. •.••••• ---i·-·······-i···········-i-·-· ____ j .......... . : : : : : ; ! l ; ;
········ ··r······-··1·--·······i-···· -··· ··t ·-· · ·--·1 -· · · · · -·· ·· ............ +----.---·!--····-···t··········+ --··· ---!-··········
j j ~ i : I. I • 2
II •• .6
"' .. .8 I.I J.2
, " /I
--·-vnz·at1n111 rt11rJpU/fl/¢J'H2?,' ---K--1----- -- -- --- ------------ . ..,,e:. _____ -1-&-__
-- -- - -· - - ·-· -----,
1-J: - '
_z__j_ ___ .,..._..-----~ - ----- ---- --------++--
- ----- - -- - - '(J_ -- ___ )! -- ____ ------ - ----==r_ ~c_,,,'b~'---+-1---_.JJ4· fitl'-- <!>W)'l?dJf. __
~ ~-i=--~~~~~----------~ !if~-~-=============+=~~----- . ------- ----- ---1----__ !_ _ EtSL _f0 ~_3110 _ _______________________ --------I----
___.·"-- htrff: 3~'-? fq" _ · _ _J _ _=-_· [_ ,= 'f, 6M ==-riz.-))c~ ~eq~L_ 1it11~_ or-_-_t!Cl_f, __ ~----c-&-w--Z-~------+----
___:.i ___ ~ t1.rv ch#MJ.e,.'----+n-..--tt'-r-aF71 -1Afs.Jltf(( - I.~ - : -+----- ~,, _= _/h'it.f --J I-rd.tr -i-~~!_~~~~~
-:-·---rt;,,17_-__----- ~~---- . - --~--..-~---.......,. '.(f/J,.1-= _f.lSZ @2~0.11 _{"f_Cl!lt6:1)/[j,i:i_ 1 ~ _t1Jf4 Js,a[11. ,
~1!/t;.,_-; o.f~l0.7_f ~~.ftluj·-c;;~;Jfi9Le ~=--I!fJ;;;._: 0~1i_f;_l1J,Jl+~tr/1j{mJJ4 I
" ... .. - i:i .. -O> i5 .. O> - "' .... .. .. .. 0 .. 0
" .. .. "' .. .. ~ ,, I
" 0 ... ... .. ... ::! " 0 " .. " 0 .. .... 0 .. > ~ .. - .. .. ... .. "
"' .. .. I I
"' .. .. g .. .. "'
-1Z.4A'10'-
;z.Z..x1oc.
------------------ --
-0 .. ... .. .. .. " 0 .. • •
.. • .. -• -= --0 u .. 0 ~ .. • ~
.. J ,, • -• ':! "'
-
"'I -cw IW
. /
~ v
-
r-1 0
-
-~ ---------- ) ...------- ~
~ -J """ :::;. --~ - '~
i§ -~
, ,. ~
ll E = , -
~ E b ' ~
• • IE D
• f IE p ~
H ~ IE D c
H F E D c
~
R F II! b c
n , IE D c
H ~ E lo
~ ~ E D
~ E ~ B -
T ~ IE ) c
• ' • t
O.IT Detector Dual Coll,Pole•.Flux (rA)
r-.._ r-.._ ......
• -- - • • ~ c D IE F
'
IA a D E ~ R
a
A IB Er • l II IE F •
l " " E • • " IA B E • II
" IA B ~ E • II
A IA B ~ E • • ··-A A II D E • II
• l B b II! • • ~ ' D E • ' ft: D I! • • 1-1
, '
_..i.--
N. \I
AllSYS 4.4A
AUG 14 1991
14:03:47
PLOT 1'0. 2
POST! STRESS
STEP•2
ITEll•lO
KAG
SM)f •-32.771
SKX •I . 13
zv -1
DIST•9.992
XF •6.922
TF -9.084
A --30.888
B ·-27.121
c •-23.3H
D --19.587
E --15.821
F --12.054
G •-8.287
B --4..521
I --0.753782
,.
- ' .-JI '"""' '
D _JI ,,,.. ~ ' . - ,,P I.JI--~ r J. . JJ,,,...,._ _.Ii'-• _.l,....B r.-"'-
~
-' r _,_ ~
~- I I I
i ~ -" p ,,,;' 'w
Lt:.-' )' -..!; n n - - ... .,... - - n
y J; .J
• ' ~~·~ O.IT Detector Dual Coll,Pole•.Plax l•••n (T)
-..I f-..1 '--4 ~ -..i ~N ~ N
N: ~ .
... r
: -.I - ~ D D a
c
~ I
c I~
~ I A
~ I~
~ I~
:-..
c 'I ·~ ~ ·~ c
·~ c I~
c I
~ ~ )
9 - • ~
' r ; II
•v
. r -
'
-.J>,
AllSYS 4.4A
AUG 14 1991
14:03:55
PLOT 110. 3
POST! STRESS
STEP•2
ITEll•IO
BSUK (AVG l
SKll •0.010228
SllX •2.283
zv •l
DIST•9. 992
XF •6.922
TF •9.084
A •O. 136509
B •O. 389071
c •0.641633
D •0.894195
E •l.14'7
F • l. 399
G •l.652
B •!. 904
I •2. lS7
~ ... ~.sc,,., ("".,,/s
BSVM / 0. 825637
~ " 0.743075
\ 0.66051•
0.577952
o.•9539
0.41H28
0.330266
0.247704
0.1651•2
0.08258
\ 0
I'.. • -T n •n 0 811.11119 30.9110 •11.11011
5 lS 25 34.9911 u. 9119
0.8T D•t-ctor Dual Coll,Pole•.Plgx Den•lty at Z·O•.fO••r•SO•) ----------------· ------- -----·
A.lfSYS "l.4A
AVG 14 1991
U:04:10
PLOT 110.
POSTI
STEP•2
ITER• 10
PATH PLOT
WODl•l
MOD2•40
BSllM
5
STRESS GLOBAL
zv •l
DIST•0.6666
- XF •0.5
YF •0.5
ZF •0.5
BSUK
0. I 78E-04
0.161E-04
0. l45E-04
0.12BE-04
0. ll ll!:-04
0.944E-OS
o. ?r•E-05
~
0.610E-05 / ~~ I
0.443E-05
~ ..........
0.275E-05 ...... 1---~
I 0. IOBE-05 0 40 on 120
20 60 100
0.8T Dete~tor Dual Coll,Pole•.Flux Denalty at Z•0•,(50acr'2'0•)
160
HO 180
• Sllll
DIST
200
ANSYS 4..4.A
AUG 14 1991
14:04: 13
PLOT NO.
POSTI
STEP•2
ITEll•IO
PATH PLOT
NODl •40
lfOD2•!50
BSUK
6
STllESS GLOBAL
ZV •I
DIST•0.6666
XF •O. 5
YF •0.!5
ZF •O. 5
BSUK
0.381E U4
,'\ O. 34~E-04
\ o.:>06E-04
\ 0.268E-04
\ 0.231E-04
\ ' \
0.193E-04 l/ \ o. 156E-04
\ O. l l8E-04
\ 0.806£-05
"' :~ 0.430E-05
~ 0.548£-06
n on 100 ISO
25 ,., 125
I O.~T ~~tPctor Dual Coll,Pole•.Flax Den•lty at r·50a,fO•z•~90•)
-
.. SIBT
200 250
175 225
AllSYS 4. U
AUG 14 1991
14:04:07
PLOT 110.
POST!
STEP•2
ITEll•lO
PATH PLOT
110Dl•40
NOD2•1'140
BSUH
4
STllESS GLOBAL
zv •l
DIST•0.6666
XF •O. 5
YF •0.5
ZF •0.5
• N
GE" --- Thin Pole Dot1ons: tase 3 wt1h SC return
HITHAP Vl.8 8128191 13•'17 2.e+-'-'-~~ ........ ~~........,~~~ ....... ~~~-+-
1.6
1.6
1. 'I
1.2
1.0
.6
.6
• 'I
.2 111 1 e.~~~~
II. .5 1.5 2.111 1.0 R I •I
ElfNENTS 1111 1
GE" --- Thin Polt Oot1on': Ca5e 3 ..-.tb SC return
HITHRP Vl.8 8128191 13•'17
6.111 ·-------1·-~···r···--·-·····--·1·-···--·-·---···
! ! ! 7.0 ·-·--·-·-···-·---~-------····-···.; ....... ·····---~---·-···--·-····
i ! i : : :
6.0 ·················1·-····-········1············ -·-r--·············· - 5.111 I- - • •• ·- -· ••• - • • -- ·r · --· ·---· · · · · -· i-· ·-----·----- --r-----· -··· --··· · = ..
'I. Ill
J.0 1111·1
2.0
! ! i ··················1·-····-········r············-- :·--············ '··················1·-····-·······T············-····-··············
'·················+-····-········i··············-··f ·-
•• 1e1
i l ! .s 1.0
Zt •I 1,5 2.8
GEH --- Thin Pole Dot ions: Case 3 w11h SC return
HITKRP Vl.8 8128191 13:'17 c.t_. I • ·7 ... lf•ft 0.1•1 • 5.12lll•M
2.0-t--~~.,._.,.........,,.._._.__..,~ ......... ~"'"-I~~+
1.8
1.6
I. 'I
1.2
• - 1.0 N
~ ..
.8
.6
• 'I
.2 11'
0. j I I II I I i ;
8.
7.
6.
5.
'I.
3.
2. 10·1
I.
•• .s 1.111 1.5 11111
R I •I 2.111
CONTOIMIS Of CONST~f FLUX
GE" --- Thin Pole (lotions: case 3 w11h SC return
HITHRP Vl.8 8128/91 13•'17
. . . ! . ] ! ··~:.:.::--··--'.· .. ····--··r·-••o-• r··----~·--
:- -········ +-··-···---i----······~--···· ····+---··- .. f ••.••••. : : : : :
1--·-·-····l···-···---~-------··-t ......... r ·---- .. ! ........ . ! ~ i : ~
·-·-·····-+ ···-------i-----·-··-~----·-····· ·---- ---i---······· : : : : : i i i i j
1--·······--+··--------:·-----····~·-·---·-···+ .. ---:·-··----··· i i j ; i : : : : :
1--·· •. ·-·-• .;. ...... ----i. ---- -----.f- -· ·-· ...•. ..;.. .. . - .. i .... ·-· ... .
~ l i l l .... ·-..... .). ....... --. i --· ........... ---·-... .).. --· -i .......... .
f i ! i f .. .......... .,. •. -------. t· ---------1-.......... 't ·- --- •• t· -· .••••...
I I I I I : : : : :
I. I . 2 II -~ .6
RI •I .8 I.. 1.2
GEM --- Thon Pole Option~: Ca~e 3 ~.th SC return
MITMRP Vl.0 8/28/91 9: 2 Contour I • -2.091E+02 Delta • 5.229E+00
1. 5
1. 4
1. 3
1. 2
1 • 1
1 • fZl
.9 ~
E .8
.7 N
.6
.5
.4
• 3
.2
-11 1 fZl
fZl • fZl. 2. 4. 6. 8.
R I ml CONTOURS OF CONSTRNT FLUX
GEM --- Thin Pole Opt1on5:
MITMRP Vl.0 8/28/91 Contour l • 0.00BE+00 Delta •
1.5~ I '1' :~ 1 • 4
1. 3
1 • 2
1 • 1
1. 0
.9
Ca5e 3
15:21 5.070E+00
'E .8 ~
N .7
.6
.5
.4
.3
.2
10·11 0. l i I
1 I I I 1 I I I
(;1 I I I I I IU • ' I I ii I I I I I I I I I I 111111 I I I I \ I I J I \ I \ I 1 I 11 \ ,.,..
2. 4. 6. 8. R I ml
CONTOURS OF CONSTRNT FLUX
7 mJ -CS>
N N N s .
N "" ai O> s N "" IT> Cl) 151 N "' s
("')
s 0 :::> -t 0 c: CJ) -,
0 Cf) en r 0 -< l'TI Cf) CJ)
("") cs - -t 0 • C"l rri z cs z
~ CSI -1 cs <: •• Cl "' N s + • c :::D
CSI W Cf) :D
cs (.f)
-t Cl> I>
Cl 3 ' ........ -.,, ....J G'i ...... I c:o .,, en ID -t
r 0 • c (!)
x ~ ..t: Cl>
• - Ul N
N . ,&:. ~ s -·~ ...:I w ...:I ITI + cs cs
N • en
.....
1 .,
gdmagpan 1-1 9n.191
The Design-to-Cost Development of the
Initial GEM Magnet Baseline
Gary A. Deis, Applied Research Engineering Division, LLNL
GEM Magnet Panel Meeting 4-6 September, 1991
SSCL, Dallas TX
Outline
In this talk, I will discuss:
gdm•gpmt-2 912/'n
• Our design-to-cost effort (overview)
• The approach and methods we used
• The major steps in relaxing the magnet design requirements and reducing the cost.
• The next step
• Summary
LI
The initial GEM magnet specifications
resulted from a "design to cost" effort
The overall objective was to develop a concept for an L*·like detector, estimated to cost less than $500M. .
gdmagpan1~3
9/2191
• We reduced the magnet cost (by changing the performance requirements) from $179M to $73M, In 3 major steps
• Because of the time available (1 month), detailed designs/costing were not performed at each step. We relied instead on a magnet/muon parametric cost model
• We do not regard the cost model predictions as "real" cost estimates, but rather a guide to the important trends.
• A complete design and a good cost estimate for the LOI is the objective of our present work
Lll
Our parametric cost model permitted overall system _®timizations
Malor Input parameters:
Magnet OD Magnet ID Magnetic Field Barrel OD No. muon wires/plane
Mechanical clearances Max/min sizes Unit cost factors
gdmagpanl-4 9n/91
~
Design Models
Magnet design algorithms
Muon design algorithms
Cost Models
Magnet cost algorithms
Muon cost algorithms
f Costs (byWBS)
Design parameters:
Numbers of parts Sizes, shapes, weights Mass of steel etc, etc, etc
Performance Model
Muon performance calc's
t Performance (muon L\p/p}
ll
The magnet cost model was based on scaling from the L * LOI design Lii
Simple calculations were done to size conductor, vessels, poles, etc., then costs were scaled based on a variety of parameters:
gdmagpanl...S 9!2J'll
The cost for:
conductor coil winding vessels bobbins radiation shields cold-mass supports cryogenics poles
was scaled by:
$/Ampere-m (and design) $/kg and $/m $/m2 surface area $/Pa-m (mag press*dia) $/m2 surface area fixed fixed (except rad shields) $/kg
f..-------------- 53.42 m --------------i
9.21 m
2.00 m
------- 31.00 m -------""1 i------- 27.00m ------
Hadron Calorimeter v Muon Chambers
Electromagnetic Calorimeter
L_ Central Tracker
7.5°
The L * LOI provided the starting point for the development of the GEM design ~ L * was a fairly complete pre-conceptual design, which was costed in some detail, and was then reviewed by the Theriot Panel
gdmagpan1-6 9!2m
• The magnet was a 2-coil (ie shielded) superconducting solenoid with iron poles. (Separate (warm) solenoids were used for eta > 2. 7)
0.83T 17.Sm ID, 24.0m OD, 27m internal length $127M, not including contingency
• The muon subsystem was designed to achieve 3.2°/o muon resolution:
32/64/32 sense wires per plane $158M, not including contingency
• Total estimated base cost: $285M (magnet+ muon)
We adopted the Theriot Panel's recommendations for all further costing Lll
• The Theriot panel recommended no change in the base cost estimates, but recommended increased EDIA, contingency, and R&D costs.
• We assumed these additions were uniform over all subsystems (conservative). This resulted in a 41o/o increase over our base costs:
$179M for magnet $223M for muon
$402M total (magnet+muon)
(The end point of the downscoping is a system costing $226M -including TF (the ''Theriot Factor") - for magnet and muon subsystems)
gdmagpanl-7 9/2191
The first step in downscoping
was a reduction in coverage
gdmogpanl-9 9/2191
• Forward/Backward magnet and muon systems were eliminated. This sacrificed coverage for eta > 2.7 (or theta < 7.5°)
• The cost savings was $20M for magnet, $27M for muon
• Resulting costs (including TF) are: $159M for magnet $196M for muon
$355M total (magnet+muon)
II
i--------------- 53.42m ---------------1 9.21 m
2.00m
1-------- 31.00m -------
i------- 27.00m ------i
Hadron Calorimeter Muon Chambers
'
Electromagnetic Calorimeter
L..- Central Tracker
STEP~I
Next, the muon resolution was relaxed II We changed the muon resolution from the L * LOI value of 3.21 % ap/p , to 5°k ap/p (both at 500 Gev and 90°) ·· . .
gdmagp.n t • 10 9f2J'll
• We reduced the magnet ID from 17.Sm to 16.6m, with no change in the OD. Savings came from:
reduced field in the annulus smaller/lighter parts (inner vessel, bobbin, and poles)
• This reduced the magnet cost by $33M, to $126M
• We reduced the overall size of, and number of sense wires in the muon subsystem. Savings came from:
fewer parts (sectors, chambers, wire planes, etc) halving the number of electronics channels:
32/64/32 wires changed to 16/32/16 • This reduced the muon cost by $43M, to $153M
• Total cost at this stage: $279M (magnet+muon, incl TF)
.,, CD
0 c
: .,,
-::E ~ -.,, 0 0
w > !;( ..... w a:
350
300 -I
250
Outer Diameters
Muon/SC Magnet Cost Model • V1a
Cost vs Performance at BO = 0.83T
Data from "'CvsP/.828T/16,24,32/data"
I
\22
I
' • I I. 26 m 24 m
\ ' \ I I I
-\ I \ \
\ '. '\. \~
'
3.2% L" LOI design (32 wires)
'I).,
'"'o. ~, "'Q.._o. ........
..... , ........... ..... 'o---
5%, 2-coll design (16 wires)
\ I
m\ I I
q\
'~ ....
' \ ' ' \,'a
........ .. .. ..... -'.:.'=8: .... - ..... .:a
200-1-----...... ------.,..------...-----~-L--.....,...----..... ------.-----+-----....... ------1
1
CvsP/.828T/16&32/moda gd-3/26191-1025
2 3 4 5 6
ap/p {%)
BO : 0.83 T
Outer Radius (m) • No. wires
10.0. 32
---a----... ---------
Notes:
11.0·32
12.0· 32
13.0. 32
10.0·18
11.0-18
12.0 • 18 13.0-18
- Includes fib systems • does not Include TF
::!: ... ~
Ill .. -0 c ti .. Ill --Ill 0 .. c 0 :I
370
350
330
310
::ii 290 + -ti c Q 270 <U ::!:
(_j
Muon/SC Magnet Cost Model
J------' ----• £ ----- ~ . ~ -'0-------------- --' - --o-- -------. -----
\ • . . - ' . • • .
'
·------- ·ii -----------u----------------1 ---- -----• '
1t ---.--------.-----.:: ' -0----------------0-------------.---
All cases: double coll 24mOD
--- 3.21% - 32 wires .- 5% - 32wlres ........ 7% - 32wtres
--i:J'-- 3.21% • 16 wires
---6-- 5% - 18 wires ---o--- 7% • 18 wires. '
.& .- LOI design
3.21% 24mOD 0.828T $355M
Noles: 250
0.8 ~ •
0.9 •
1.0 1.1
1. does not include costs tor forward systems
2. Includes AEDIA + conl (lotal A • 41%)
Figure 5-2
Central Magnetic Field, T
Variation In combined central mapet alld mllOll 111tem1 cost with resolullon, Reid and chamber C0111tnictlolt bitted upoa an Integrated parametric cOll model. The L • Letter ot lntHt desJan point II Indicated.
Finally, the magnet concept was changed L\I Without significantly changing the physics performance, the outer (shield) coil was eliminated
1¢m'8P""l-11 9/2/91
• The ID and central field was fixed, then the shield coil was removed and the end pole thicknesses were reduced. Savings came from:
elimination of one coil and intercoil structure reduction in size of outer vessel and poles
• The total extrapolation from our starting point was becoming large, so conservative assumptions were made:
no significant savings in cryogenic system "medium-thickness" end poles
• This reduced the magnet cost by $53M, to $73M
• Total cost $226M, incl TF
Baseline magnet configuration
E 0 ro rn
1.25 m
E 0 N t-
gdD2co!l:ih2- 4 7 /J.'j/91
CUITRAL OF.:T(CTOR surPon1 CYLINDER
27.00 m
10.QO m · 1
I i --r
E
·-·-·-·1·-·-·-· . ol. - · - · - · - · . - "':I ,_ I
SIC WINDING
1.25 m
El E 0 l.D
\12
0 co ~
L\I
~ a;;
'i' "'
' ,'
S.C. Coil, Tapered Iron Pole, No Barrel 18 E I I ' ' I/ I/ y Ji/Y/VYYYCI I I I =t
16
14
12
Z (m) 10
8
6
4
2
00 5 10 15 R (m)
Contours of constant flux TIP-020$4
420
:e 400 -~ 380 .,, ID -0
360 c ID G> 340 Ill --.,, 320 0 0
c 300 0 :::J
:::;;
+ 280 -ID 260 c DI
1111 I
"
Muon/SC Magnet Cost Model 1-coil Version - V1*
Data from "d/SC-1coll/17·25mOD,16&32"
•' I \iJ
/
3·2%, 2-coil L • LOI (w/o fib) $355M •' ,. . ' q\.
\.. ' ' Q - '•
\.. ' ' .. ' ' ~~ ' ... .. Cl .... .. tt ...... ...
Iii.
' .... __ --. .....
• It~--..~-.. ~--....... "'13.~ .............. """" ..... -~-... _
... ,,._,__ --.;;r .... .._ - -o.-.,.. _ -~!"-. ......
5%, 1-coll design (with thiek pole) $235M
501 1-coil design •--..--. -• •••••------• .,._ ~ --- ·~ ~ (with thin pole) - ----•---------------
$226M , .... <> • I ' I ' I . I • I 220 ' I
.. :::;;
240
1 2
C*vsP/1-coil, 17-25mOD, 16 6/4/91 - 1458 - gd
3 4
Ap/p (%)
5 6 7 8
All cases: single SC coil 16 wires
------- 25mOD
----- 24mOD ---o--- 23mOD
---...-- 22mOD
---a--- 21mOD
--~-- 20mOD ---r-- 19mOD
------- 18mOD
----- 17mOD
.-- LOI design 2-coil, 24m OD 3.21%, $355M
Notes: 1. No forward system 2. Includes AEDIA + cont
(total A - 41%)
Magnet downscoping summa_ry
L * LOI LOl-f /b 5°k. 2-coil 5°/o. 1-coil
Outer dia, m 24.0 24.0 24.0 Inner dia, m 17.8 17.8 16.6 Internal length, m 27.0 27.0 27.0 Central field, T 0.83 0.83 0.83 Max eta for muons 4.0 u 2.7 Muon res @ 90°, o/o 3.2 3.2 5.0 Shielded magnet yes yes yes
Magnet cost, $M 179 159 126 Muon cost, $M 223 196 153
Total cost, $M 402 355 279
(Underlining shows significant changes from previous design)
gdmagpanl-8 9111"1
17.8 16.6 27.0 0.83 2.7 5.0 DQ
73 153
226
LI
Magnet/Muon Cost Model
Subsystem Costs for Major Design Points
250.,.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-
200
.-:E .,. ~
II. 150 i .... u c
. 100 -ell 0 0
50
0
Csubsysvsdesign
..
L• LOI Design $402M
gd - 9/2/91 - 1137
L• LOI-fib Design $355M
•
5% 2-coll Design $279M
•
5%, 1-coll Design $230M
I Em Magnet Cost
• Muon Cost
Muon/Magnet Cost Model
Magnet Element Costs for Major Design Points 60,-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
50 -::E .... ~
LI. ... 40 ...
Jll II .5 ..: ., 0 0 .. c G> E
20 .! w .. G> c Cll ... 10
::E
0 Structures Coils. Cryogenics Power/Pro! Iron Poles
Cmagelmntvsdesign gd - 8/31/91 - 1531
Magnet Element
• L• LOI Design
Ill 5%, 2-coll Design
fl 5%, 1-coll BaseHne
What's the next step?
The parametric cost model is not an acceptable way to do a real cost estimate at the LOI stage.
Ill
The present baseline concept is also quite different from the design we are using as a basis for extrapolating costs
gdmagpanl-12 9/2/'A
• We need to do a good point design for the baseline concept
• We need to do a credible cost estimate for this point design
• If necessary, we can construct a new cost model, based on the new baseline, for use in optimizing the overall design (after GEM LOI)
GEMWBSRev1B printed 2:21 PM, 9/2/91
3.0 GEM Construction SSCL WBS 5,2 2,3(WBS by system/subsystem/etc)
3.1 Magnet subsystem 3.1 .1 Solenoid Magnet
3.1.1.1 Coil Assemblies 3.1.1.1.1 Coil Subassemblies
3.1.1.1.1.1 Bobbin 3.1.1.1.1.2 Conductor 3.1.1.1.1.3 Diagnostics 3.1.1.1.1.4 Winding Tooling 3.1.1.1.1.5 Assembly
3.1.1.1.1.5.1 Off-Site Assembly 3.1.1.1.1.5.2 On-Site Assembly
3.1.1.1.2 Radiation Shields 3.1.1.1.2.1 Inner Shield 3.1.1.1.2.2 Outer Shield
3.1.1.1.3 Cryostat Subassemblies 3.1.1.1.3.1 Inner Vessel 3.1.1.1.3.2 Outer Vessel 3.1.1.1.3.3 Vessel Ends
3.1.1.1.4 Cold Supports 3 .1 .1.1.5 Misc Supports 3.1.1.1.6 Cryogenic Current Leads 3.1.1.1.7 Assembly and Testing Equipment 3.1.1.1.8 Assembly
3.1.1.1.8.1 Off-site assembly 3.1.1.1.8.2 On-site assembly
3.1.1.1.9 Testing
3.1.1.2 End Poles/Supports 3.1.1.2.1 End Pole Subassemblies 3.1.1.2.2 End Pole Support Subassemblies
3.1.1.3 Detector Supports (If separate assemblies) 3.1.1.3.1 Muon Sector Supports 3.1.1.3.2 Central Detector Support
3.1.2 Power/Protection System 3.1.2.1 Power Supply 3.1.2.2 Buswork 3.1.2.3 Breakers and Dump Resistors 3.1.2.4 Quench Detection and Diagnostics
pages
3.1.3 Cryogenics 3.1.3.1 Refrigerator 3.1.3.2 Dewars 3.1.3.3 Piping and Distribution 3.1.3.4 Thermosyphon Piping 3.1.3.5 He Recovery System 3.1.3.6 LN Subcooler
3.1.7 Installation Tooling 3.1.7.1 Central detector Support 3.1. 7 .2 Coil Assemblies 3.1. 7 .3 Pole Assemblies
3.1.8 Installation 3.1.8.1 Solenoid Magnet Installation
GEM WBS Rev 1 B printed 2:21 PM, 9/2/91
3.1.8.2 Power/Protection System Installation 3.1.8.3 Cryogenic System Installation
3.1.9 Subsystem Management & Integration 3.1.9.1 ES&H Assurance 3.1.9.2 Quality Assurance Program 3.1.9.3 Systems Integration
3.1.9.3.1 Interface Control 3.1.9.3.2 Conventional/Technical Facilities Interfacing
3.1.9.4 Subsystem Management 3.1.9.5 Subsystem Cost/Schedule Monitoring
page7
Summary
• The $73M GEM magnet concept descends directly from the Theriot-reviewed $179M L * LOI magnet design
• The cost reductions were achieved by relaxing performance requirements, in a design-to-cost approach
• The present cost "estimates" were generated by a parametric cost model, which scaled costs from the L * LOI design
• For the GEM LOI, we are at work on a thorough (though conceptual) point design and a credible cost estimate
We are looking forward to working with the GEM Magnet Panel in the development of this design/cost estimate!
gdmagpanl-13 9/1191
LI
Gem Engineering Meeting September 4-6, 1991 Robert A. Richardson
Superconducting Coil Cryogenic System
A. The following questions will need to be answered to determine what affects the cryogenic systems will have on the underground hall design. In order to respond for the GEFUR (Gem Experimental Facilities User Requirements) due October 28,1991, a response to these questions would be appreciated by October 21, 1991 or sooner.
1. The heat loads for the superconducting magnet including the various loads separately. The heat loads must include the vapor cooled lead liquefaction loads.
2. The additional heat loads during charging from eddy currents.
3 The cooldown requirements for the magnet. times, methods of cooldown, refrigerator sizing cooldown or use of stored liquid for cooldown.
Cooldown for
4. The quench recovery requirements for the magnet.
5. The type of magnet cooling system that is being proposed ie thermal siphon (natural convection), forced flow by compressors or pumps. Provide a schematic of the cooling system if it is different than the enclosed drawing R40000025000 & R40000042000.
6. Provide a proposed routing of the cryogenic lines from the surface to the detector. Review the enclosed GEM proposed cryogenic line routing and comment.
7. Surface facility layout for the cryogenic system.
RAR 9/4f)I 9:03 1 RR00024
B. More detailed information including analysis of heat leaks through the insulation, structural straps, etc., will be needed to procure a refrigerator system that will support the coil sometime in 1992. The exact date is to be determined by more detailed schedules.
RAR 9/4/91 9:03 2 RR00024
GEM Experimental Facllltles Schedule 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997
!Cryogenic System Group Tasks Finish
Design utlllty Bldg. 10/8192 ! i •11112 c:;= & mo i ! i . i ! ! i i i ! i i i i i i ·····(·····+· .. , ..... ·····.·····+·············· .......................... -. .. ·<I-·················+····+·····, ..... , ..... +····+···.,······· ····~······~·· . IR·1 Rudy Surface Facllllles
IBld I Award Utll. Bldg.
ICon•trucl U1111ty Bldg.
IBOD utlllty Bldg.
IConc Daslgn Coll Assy Bldg.
IDa•lgn Coll Assy Bldg.
Bid 6 Award Coll Assy. Bklg.
!Construct Coll Assy. Bldg.
Retrofit Coll Assy Bldg.
BOD Coll Assy. Bldg.
10124/94
1/19193 ··:-.,
9/11195
9/11195
6/12192
121221921
~-r-r ·····t····t·1
" 6/20n1"t
9/14194 ·-:+' 9/14194 ~=1~1 . . . . . . . 9/14194 0 'f I
6::; ::~:rJ : ·-r-r·r-r-r . i : ",.,.;-' · ·,
1SC Coll Dnlgn
SC Coll Manufacture
SC Coll Surface Tut Coll #1
..... L .. .J Concaptual Daalgn Cryo System 9/1/93 i ! -lnaJ Da•lgn Cryo system 511194 ---r-r tld I Award Cryo System 9/1194 ..... , .... .,.
onatruct Cryo System ~1194
lln1tall Cryo Sy•l•m·Hell/Sur 11/1/96
ISol•nold Installation (Detector) 9/4/97
~ryo System Toots 1213/97 1Sol~ld Cooldown & Test 1/5/98
IFleld Mopping 215/98
ther Detector lnstl I: checkout 9/23/99
DeW:tor Operation 9123199 ''i'" Prepared by: Robert A. Richardson
1998 1999 2000 2001
Wednesday, August 28, 1991
Experimental Facllltles Schedule
1 991 1992
CRYOGENIC GROUP TASKS July I Aug i Sep ! Oct I Nov I Dec i Jan ! Feb Mar I Apr i May i June I July I Aug ! Sep ! Oct
Miiestones for GEM & IR • 1: .... ..!. ..... .,. .... Detector Mllstones i ;
1-----------------1·.,,-~.---.4.-,. .... GEFUR Revisions ! ! -----------------j······;l> Tiiie I Design
Tiiie II Design
!Tasks for GEM and IR • 1 Cryo System:
Perform Anal. & Select Sys Design
Prepare Datallad Schematics
Develop Performance Specification
cryo system eu11d1ng Layouts r··1·I·r:11 -Ft-.. t 1IT· i j ! l 1r·1 .. -1~:- .. i -· i ~t-ts;::t"· '. -=--t-+-cryo System Quote ....... , ....... r···· .... r ........... :1:"'"'"T""'"l1······r"'T"~""'i'"''''''''"r"·;····1"'''j"'"i'•••·· .... Tasks by·-· ......... "6.:;. .... , ....... ; ...... t""'t'"'" ---------------<· . . · , ' . · I ,....----... ·- . - !~~- -~-r--"' •
U/G & Surface Cryo Pipe Routing · ·
Transfer Line Dwgs
Transfer Lina Spec
Transfer Line Quote
l.
Deliverables: I l i l i I 1 11
l 1..J i l j I I l i l 1' l l · -----.+·--f-.v- - -:-·- --··..,.r-+-o-·--,---: ~ ...,.,,..j. ---i---~-~.,, ··-..,.t--t---- "'4·~ --i-.......,.,-+-· -·--~·---· ----+---·
=:.:.:·:: · .. _... 1+J~r· !+ri+t~·f··~·-i-··t··· .. -t .... +· .. ~·~t~+$·i ~~Jr ++ ~"' ~~ - ...... ~- ...J.y~-- ·r~-" ~ T~~
TransfarllnaSpec.&Dwgs. . i i ! i Ii i i <> ! ! i j l l ! l l l
Prepared by: Robert A. Richardson Wednesday, August 28, 1991
FY 91-92 Milestones Experimental Facilities and Detector Engineering
• continued •
GEM (not a complete list)
• • • • • • • •
Approved to Proceed to LOI (PAC/SSCL) Magnet Design Meeting • 1st (GEM) Magnet Design Meeting • 2nd (GEM) PAC Tech. Progress Report (GEM) Magnet Design Meeting • 3rd (GEM) LOI Submitted (GEM) GEM Approved to Proceed to Tech. Prop. (PAC/SSCL) Technical Proposal Submitted (GEM)
IR 1 Facilities
• • • • • • •
U/G Pre-Title I Report Complete (CCDIPBMK) GEFUR Rev. A (PRD) GEFUR Rev. B (PRO) U/G Title I Design Begins (CCDIPBMK) Initial Surface Facility Design Begins (CCD/PBMK) GEFUR Rev. C (PRD) U/G Title Il Design Begins (CCDIPBMK)
Experimental Facilities • F/TPA
•
•
• •
• • • • •
Facility Support ror Detector Systems "Fixed" ror Technical Proposals (PRD)
Detector Assembly and Installation Schedules Developed (PRD)
Full- Operation or TIC (PRD) Detector Support Facilities Concepts Complete ror Tech .
Proposal (PRD) U/G Hall Title I Desi~ns Reviewed (PRD) Detector Surface Facility Requirements Updated (PRD) Detector Facility Conceptual Designs Complete (PRD) Detector Equipment Conceptual DesiJnS Complete (PRD) Proceed with Detector Facilities Equipment Design,
Procurement, Installation (PRD)
Jul 19 '91 Sep 04 '91 Sep 25 '91 Oct 03 '91 Oct 10 '91
Nov 30 '91 Jan 02 '92 Oct 01 '92
Oct 15 '91 Oct 28 '91 Jan 02 '92
-Jan IS '92 -Jan 15 '92 Jun 01 '92
-Jul 15 '92
Sep '91
Sep '91 Oct '91
Apr '92 Apr '92 Apr '92
May '92 May '92
Sep '92
OLE page 2 8/12/91 • 17:36
COOL DOWI HE4T EXCHANGER LIQUID NITROGEN TO HELUM
3-5 M. L
THERMALEIPH&N CRYOG~IC SYSTEM S HE ATIC (HELi Ml
! :--~~#<S-=-·:.T:.::T:~-M~E~~----=-·:.-=-·:.-=-·:.-=-·:.-=-·:.-=-·:.-=-·:.-=-·:.-=-·:-~
.tW2. BOX
1.2 ATM
MAGNET He SUPPLY 11,000 L.l
FORCED FLOW ._ __ THROUGI! MAGNET
CONDUCTOR 2ATM
.. . , I. . '
He STORAGE DEWAR , I I.
CYROGEN!C BUl!.DING . ' LIQUID TRANSFER LINE .............
FORCED FLOW RETURN
~ M9 TO CGll"IESSOR SUCTION
--- rtm.il'ttl ... _.--- lM """*- COMWlCTION LOOI'
·us~&
~c.rr--""'
YAQUI WlSSEL
.... _ ·-
NITROGEN SHIELDING SYSTEM SCHEMATIC
IOUID NITROGEN
TO REFRIGERATOR I ........ <: I --- SAFETY RELIEF
PRESSURE CONTROL
SUBCOOLER _ __,,
GROUND LEVEL PUMP---~·
PRESSURE GUACE --"""
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0 MAGNET NITROGEN SHIELD
VACUUM VESSEL
·-
t
I
---•z
CENTERLINE OF DETECTOR MAGNET He
SUPPLY TANK
~---
GEM DETECTOR HALL
ti~ ~ CRYOGENIC PIPING
~
GEM PROPOSED CRYOGENIC
I INF ROI ITINr,
c
~$
0 0 llli
) )
' .
icENTERLINE OF /DETECTOR
I
-l 1· .146
.146 ~ H-I _._ I I ' I
0.75" x 4• V .J. He LIQUID TRANSFER ' - - - - -0.75' x 4' V.J. He -............ ---------------- --- .,
2' x 4• V.J. N SUPPLY \ --------------- - .,
MAGNET He UPPLY TANK
TOP OF DETECTOR ~ I Ti/ I I I
I I I ' ' . I I I I I I I I
~ft! ~~ I .203
I a1 o 1 «i «I ~I ~I ol ol W 1 uJ1 I __J __J
01 ol I 0 0 ui u1._1 a::I a::l sl 01 0101
~I ~161 >1 >1U1 P..,I ...,,...,,
SECTION A-A <LOOKING WEST l
D X: IV y .u., I IC I .I 1\1'1 Lfl\IL
.,. .,. I' x 4' V .J. He LIQUID SUPPLY
00 ,.., " 7C.• v A' II ' ' '-
"' ..... .,. v A 1 \I I II.I ",...Tl 1011.1
00 .....
c I'--
"': ----------------------
-' -' .. " a: 0 ,_ u w ,_ w CJ
:s -' -' ;1-----,
,4
0.75' x 4' V.J. He LIQUID SUPPLY
0.75' x 4' Y.J. He
2" x '4° V.J. N SUPPLY -------------
CRANE RAIL SUPPORT
'4 OFFSET
FOR I TUNNEL 1
(1
) 11 (~)----
t-,~,-----F-----
+Ji-------~t-------
I I I 1-u: ~
I 1
4
I
.... I I ~l~t I
sl sl 1 51 z51 I ol ol I u u ,_ ""11
a:l 51 ~~I~ <1 "" 0 >I >lu1 ~ ~,,.,,
PLATFORM
SECTION B-B t LOOKING SOUTH l
... ,
CRANE
:;:1
§I .§~ \Q'..Y.·-b tl.! f!ETU~NJ:.!NE
I' x 4' V.J. He LIQUID SUPPLY
- - - - - - .Q . ..!§'.JC£ y.~H~ - - -
______ £'.!L 4_: y,,/.jlJl.E!URN __
.323
CEILING
0. I~~~'!. .J. !l~ l,!OUIQ .IR_ANS.fER
1.250
- .292 I
0."!_5..'.._x_ £ '!_.J. !j~ - - - - - - - -f-E>-E>--- -- -- -- -- -~l 2' !..i'_V.J,_~S~PPh'!.__ _____ _
...; @@ii-----------
1 I ! TUNNEL
FLOOR
.254 ~ -· .254
03 -1 1-
0 0 < < w w ...J ...J 0 0 w w ...J ...J 0 0 0 0 u u ..... 0:: 0:: 5 0 0 0 a. a. z < < 0 > > u ;.,, ;.,, ,..,
SECTION C-C SECTION Cl-Cl
I LOOKING SOUTH l
(Ill ,...,
0 ,.._, 1'>1 ..!I
6' x 10' v,J. He RETURN LINE
I' x 4' V.J. He LIQUID SUPPLY
0.75' x 4' V.J. He
2' x 4' V .J. N RETURN
~"s'ir.}r
-- z -- - - ..r1• x 4' V.J. He LIQUO $1.PPLY
I
11 I
I,' I ---------- -€> i
,,
'Z' x "1'V.J. NRETURN
3' VAPOR COOLED LEAD
SHAFT
•
-i=h ~--~~J L _________ 1_ I
..:rJ== = = =---=- ~~-~=========-r=-==-=,._,,---11 "I ~ I I : 1-------------
1 I I I i I I I •
Ji• VAPOR COOLED LEAD 7
L 2" )( 4' V.J. N 51.PPLY
' 0.15' x 4' V.J. He
• O. 75' x 4" Y .J. He LIQUI) TRANSFER
I
I CENTERLllE OF SHAFT
I
I
PLAN OF NORTH SHAFT
STAIRS