structure update installation & building update revisions outlined costs revisited (since given...
TRANSCRIPT
Structure UpdateInstallation & Building Update
Revisions OutlinedCosts Revisited
(since given to Gina)
Jeff NelsonFermilab
9/03 OA4 - FNAL
Page 2
• Reminder of current scintillator detector concepts and alternatives>What’s different in liquid vs solid?
• Installation Update• Value engineering summary• Cost summaries
9/03 OA4 - FNAL
Page 3
Basic Object
• For either scintillator use same structure> Liquid needs 3cm
gaps instead of 1.7cm gaps
> Simple adjustment in structure
• Alternating view every 8”
• Strips 4cm wide
readout
read
ou
t
read
ou
t
14.5 m 14.5 m
180 m
885 planes
14.5 m
9/03 OA4 - FNAL
Page 4
A detector “unit”
• Units made from natural OSB dimensions• 8” x 48ft x 8ft• 2 or 3 pieces of wood in 8 layers • Two 30-strip modules which are 4ft x 48ft• Encased in wood and captured with clips• Step in z every 8ft
End view of single unit
9/03 OA4 - FNAL
Page 5
Building up the detector
Next one here
9/03 OA4 - FNAL
Page 6
Structural Properties of a Stack
• Bob Wands Bob Wands using an ANSYS FEA model tested extreme cases for some quick answers
• Horizontal with 2 or 3 supports along entire length
Weight of 48 ft long stack (w/o scint) = 9700 lbs
End View of Defining Volumes
FE Mesh Detail
9/03 OA4 - FNAL
Page 7
Deflection and Stress in an Extreme Case
Maximum deflection is 0.9”
Maximum stress is 562 lbs
9/03 OA4 - FNAL
Page 8
Bob’s Conclusions
• There are no particular structural issues> Stresses and loads low (Vic’s conclusion too)> Bulking not an issue
• JKN Comment: FEA results say unsupported out vertical is at less then 30 degrees is fine
> He see no need for any bookends other that to start construction
> Expansions is global if bottom treated with low enough coefficient of friction
> Only question is do you want to do something to control bulk expansions for maintaining alignment for physics
> Thought container engineering more “interesting” problem…
9/03 OA4 - FNAL
Page 9
Installation Update
• Model unchanged except > Stacks make in industrial
building (e.g. MINOS surface building)
> Gets your floor space a lot cheaper & at grate
> Nathaniel stack production layout needs 5X surface building
> Earl scales it at $3M
• Revisited number of FTE > Some double counting> 34 -> 28 (plus support
staff)
9/03 OA4 - FNAL
Page 10
Putting up the units• Rigged using rotating vacuum
fixture> Just like every piece of MINOS steel
• Bob Wands verified that a stack’s weight is well within specifications for commercially available devices with cups specified with for porous surfaces
• Bob also says he’s convinced the stresses within are stack are safety below levels that could lead to structure failure in the material during a light
9/03 OA4 - FNAL
Page 11
Main changes of WRT Estimate
• APDs & modern PPD electronics ($ and channel count go down; 10m -> 14.5m)
• U loop reduces fiber costs; increases uniformity• Step scintillator at near end (15% reduction in volume)• Factory managers update shows machines and
throughput OK; machine costs • Earl updated building scaling; Staging facility• Progression (Detector without buildings)
> $119M for M64 (L=10m) no changes from MINOS (Brajesh)> $ 98M for APD (L=14m @ July talk)> $ 93M more detailed costs; remove G&A; double counting
(now)
• $163/m2 including electronics
9/03 OA4 - FNAL
Page 12
Solid Scintillator Cost SummaryWBS Task Total($M)2.0 Detector 92.8$ 2.2.1.1 Absorber 16.4$ 2.2.1.2 Internal Structure 0.9$ 2.2.1.3 Detector intergration prototyping 0.4$ 2.2.2.1 scintillator strips 31.5$ 2.2.2.2 WLS fibers 11.2$ 2.2.2.3 Module components 9.4$ 2.2.2.4 Module factories 3.0$ 2.2.2.5 Module construction 7.2$ 2.2.3.1 APDs 1.7$ 2.2.3.2 Frontends 1.8$ 2.2.3.3 PD housings 1.5$ 2.2.3.4 DAQ and electronics 1.6$ 2.3 Installation 6.2$
3.2 building 20.5$ 3.3 outfitting 0.5$ 3.4 receiving/staging facility 3.0$ total 117.0$
9/03 OA4 - FNAL
Page 13
Liquid Version
• Based on MINOS R&D summarized in P.Border et al NIMA 463:194,2001 >Documents a structural and mechanical
design (to ME masters theses on these issues)
>Liquid added after erection, light, and leak tests
>Extensive studies of the effects of aging on optical and mechanical interactions of materials
9/03 OA4 - FNAL
Page 14
Liquid Scintillator Cost SummaryWBS Task Total($M)2.0 Detector 71.2$ 2.2.1.1 Absorber 16.4$ 2.2.1.2 Internal Structure 0.9$ 2.2.1.3 Detector intergration prototyping 0.4$ 2.2.2.1 scintillator 12.8$ 2.2.2.2 WLS fibers 11.2$ 2.2.2.3 Module components 10.6$ 2.2.2.4 Module factories 0.9$ 2.2.2.5 Module construction 4.9$ 2.2.3.1 APDs 1.7$ 2.2.3.2 Frontends 1.8$ 2.2.3.3 PD housings 1.5$ 2.2.3.4 DAQ and electronics 1.6$ 2.3 Installation 6.5$
3.2 building 20.5$ 3.3 outfitting 0.5$ 3.4 receiving/staging facility 3.0$ total 95.4$
9/03 OA4 - FNAL
Page 15
Solid Scintillator Cost SummaryWBS Task Total($M)2.0 Detector 92.8$ 2.2.1.1 Absorber 16.4$ 2.2.1.2 Internal Structure 0.9$ 2.2.1.3 Detector intergration prototyping 0.4$ 2.2.2.1 scintillator strips 31.5$ 2.2.2.2 WLS fibers 11.2$ 2.2.2.3 Module components 9.4$ 2.2.2.4 Module factories 3.0$ 2.2.2.5 Module construction 7.2$ 2.2.3.1 APDs 1.7$ 2.2.3.2 Frontends 1.8$ 2.2.3.3 PD housings 1.5$ 2.2.3.4 DAQ and electronics 1.6$ 2.3 Installation 6.2$
3.2 building 20.5$ 3.3 outfitting 0.5$ 3.4 receiving/staging facility 3.0$ total 117.0$
9/03 OA4 - FNAL
Page 16
Some personal extras
9/03 OA4 - FNAL
Page 17
Want more light?
• 0.8mm -> 1.0mm fibers • Gives 36% more light for $5M
9/03 OA4 - FNAL
Page 18
RPC vs Solid Scintillator
• 20% in FOM -> 45% in reach (using document values for both) >Pulse height info vs technique ???
• Costs are indiscernible for RPC vs Solid with current costing uncertainties (esp. with contingency)
• Very low risk for the solid design>Scaling production factor of 5 vs factor of 100 for RPC>Direct Fermilab experience in scintillator production
& APDs>MINOS used many institutions for production and
same would be true for Off-Axis>Comparable cost, better performance, & lower risk
9/03 OA4 - FNAL
Page 19
Solid vs Liquid
• Active components 33% cheaper (=$20M)
• Would guess that increased contingency would eat this difference at this time
• Would propose solid as baseline and liquid as a “value engineering” option
• Look at reoptimization of solid; could decrease