D. Lynn For BNL/Yale, Stave-09 Meeting, Oct 22nd, 2010

BNL Yale Mechanical Update

LBNL Mech Meeting September 2010

Tim Jones provide good summary in previous stave-09 meeting, so just a few more notes

Foam-pipe interfaceConcern by pixel people is that simulation still shows there are problems when tests do not. Very extensive and detailed FEA by Bill Miller

Agreed that BNL will pursue compliant adhesive, or no-adhesive approachBut will also help with foam measurements for pixel, but won’t start til early next year

UK to pursue rigid approach, may help with FEA also.

Co-curingLBNL showed nice co-cured facing, but it is twisted. They have made “staves” out of them, but only with homogenous core

LBNL will make co-cured facings for BNL/Yale and we will make complete stave. Question is whether to await final bus first, and go with the bus being used now. Depends on when stave-09 is needed! Depends on DC-DC???

BNL Yale Current Activities

YaleMaking brackets out of aluminum for 1.3 staveFinishing new tooling and will shortly begin making another stavelet coreWorking on ability to measure foam properties on Instron machingeSimulation work with known flow rate problem with Instron

BNLFinished (with Yale) 1.3 meter stave (in August) Testing/characterization just beginning nowFinishing simulation work on 35 cm thermo-mechanical staveWorking on lightweight frame for stave (see later slide)

Expect Foam-pipe interface work to begin in January

area[cm^2] 1560 Note pipe is about twice what next will be(10 mil walls versus present 20 mil walls)

x 12/10 Weight [g] X0 [g/cm^2] RL [%] RL norm to det [%]Pipe 106.3 13.9 0.49 0.59Foam 45.6 43 0.07 0.08CGL 15 33.4 0.03 0.03Facings 104.8 43 0.16 0.19CF Tubes 38.7 43 0.06 0.07Closeouts 4.2 43 0.01 0.01Hysol 30.7 42.4 0.05 0.06Honeycomb 24.7 43 0.04 0.04 0.00Total 370 0.89 1.07

Gil’s Estimate July 08Item Low Nominal HighFacings 0.06 0.16 0.26Honeycomb 0.03 0.04 0.05Foam 0.04 0.09 0.11Epoxy 0.01 0.03 0.04Thermal glue 0.02 0.04 0.05

Subtotal 0.16 0.36 0.51SS Tube 0.19 0.3 0.42

Subtotal 0.35 0.66 0.93Tube rails 0.03 0.06 0.09

Subtotal 0.38 0.72 1.02End closeouts 0.01 0.015 0.02

Subtotal 0.39 0.735 1.04

Mass and Radiation Length of Stave I

Expect mass of pipe to reduce by factor of 2 next stave(10 mil walls rather than 20 mil)

Expect mass of CF tubes to reduce by factor of 3 next staveCustom tubes had 1.03-1.09 mm walls after sanding

New custom tubes have .30-.38 mm walls after sanding

(.46-.58 mm one end before sanding, .58-.63 mm other)

Expect RL = .64% with new ss tubes

Stave UK Stave x 1.3/0.5 Weight [g] Pipe 106.3 98.40Foam 45.6 56.80CGL 15 Facings 104.8 103.80CF Tubes 38.7 10.80Closeouts 4.2 16.40Hysol 30.7 Honeycomb 24.7 18.40glue 45.7 33.80Total 370.00 338.40

Comparison of stave and UK normalized stavelet mass

UK chart from “The Design, Contstruction and Testing of a UK Stavelet”, Peter Cooke, Tim Jones, and Peter Sutcliffe

Result is that both builds are comparable (and consistent with earlierLBNL estimate)

are 0 .25 m m extended to le ft

ground by 3 m ils

Facing Width Concerns Relating to Gluing, Grinding, Support

(leaves little room for glue on outer side)

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140120.06120.08

120.1120.12120.14120.16120.18

120.2120.22120.24

Stave I Facing Widths Pre-Layup

Facing 1Facing 2

Longitudinal Location [cm]

Wid

th [m

m]

Gluing of CF tubes to First facing

Glue Joints

Outside InsideApply hysol only to inside: many tests done to get epoxy to bleed to outside without overflow

2nd Facing attachment

Finished Stave

Side 1

Side 2

Looks very good

2nd glue joint looks very good

Appears straight

Facing remains flat

Detailed characterization to follow

US Style Frame