snumi civil design & site considerations; issues and fess work

36
1 Fermila b SNUMI Civil Issues September 18, 2006 SNUMI Civil Design & Site Considerations; Issues and FESS work Dixon Bogert SNUMI Meeting, Fermilab September 18 th , 2006 Reporting Work by FESS – Elaine McCluskey And Chuck Federowicz, Paul Lahn Last week’s work shown in red headers and text. (9/11) This week’s work shown in magenta headers and text. (9/18)

Upload: darin

Post on 17-Jan-2016

33 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

DESCRIPTION

SNUMI Civil Design & Site Considerations; Issues and FESS work. Dixon Bogert SNUMI Meeting, Fermilab September 18 th , 2006. Reporting Work by FESS – Elaine McCluskey And Chuck Federowicz, Paul Lahn. Last week’s work shown in red headers and text. (9/11) - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: SNUMI Civil Design & Site Considerations; Issues and FESS work

1Fermilab SNUMI Civil Issues September 18, 2006 Dixon Bogert

SNUMICivil Design & Site Considerations;

Issues and FESS work Dixon Bogert

SNUMI Meeting, FermilabSeptember 18th, 2006

Reporting Work by FESS – Elaine McCluskeyAnd

Chuck Federowicz, Paul Lahn

Last week’s work shown in red headers and text. (9/11)This week’s work shown in magenta headers and text. (9/18)

Page 2: SNUMI Civil Design & Site Considerations; Issues and FESS work

2Fermilab SNUMI Civil Issues September 18, 2006 Dixon Bogert

Phase 1 Elements of Construction

SNUMI is planned to occur in two phases. The first phase, for which the items are identified with φ1 in the left margin, is required for the use of the Recycler Ring to slip stack 12 Booster batches of protons into six slots and then single turn transfer them into the Main Injector. The Main Injector will then spend minimal time at 8 GeV and the Main Injector cycle is reduced to about 1.33 seconds. The power on the NuMI Target is then about 700 kilowatts.

A discussion of the development of civil definitions and preliminary cost and schedule estimates was held between Elaine McCluskey and Dixon Bogert on August 11, 2006.The basic outline was written down by Dixon on the Engineering Note shown below.

Page 3: SNUMI Civil Design & Site Considerations; Issues and FESS work

3Fermilab SNUMI Civil Issues September 18, 2006 Dixon Bogert

MI-14(?) Kicker Building at MI-10

First, a new kicker building (MI-14?) is required approximately at cell boundary 104. This is probably best located on the inside of the FMI berm immediately adjacent to the “peanut vault” called MI-11. The size of the kicker building is specified as 30’x50’ and is assumed to be a clone of the kicker building F17 built for the Main Injector transfers into the Tevatron. It is possible, however, that additional space for the beamline power supplies for 8 GeV beam to Recycler Beam transfer will also need to be located here, and an additional 25’ (making 30’x75’) may be required. Duct banks for power and communications, and cooling piping, etc., may also be necessary, along with fire suppression, lights, HVAC, etc.

Page 4: SNUMI Civil Design & Site Considerations; Issues and FESS work

4Fermilab SNUMI Civil Issues September 18, 2006 Dixon Bogert

MI-14(?) Location Near MI-10

MI-14(?)

MI-10

MI-11

Page 5: SNUMI Civil Design & Site Considerations; Issues and FESS work

5Fermilab SNUMI Civil Issues September 18, 2006 Dixon Bogert

Proposed MI-14 Site Near MI-10

During the week FESS developed a detailed site plan for the MI-14 kicker building, based upon discussions with stafffrom AD/Electrical Support.

To avoid setting the MI-14 building in the Indian Creek floodplain, the proposed building was turned around with entrance from the top of the FMI shielding berm. Discussions included thepower required for the kickers, and the power required if anaddition to house beamline power supplies is required.

In this orientation, the kicker ducts cross under the proposedbuilding.

Shielding sections (not shown) were also made.

Page 6: SNUMI Civil Design & Site Considerations; Issues and FESS work

6Fermilab SNUMI Civil Issues September 18, 2006 Dixon Bogert

Proposed MI-14 Site Near MI-10

Page 7: SNUMI Civil Design & Site Considerations; Issues and FESS work

7Fermilab SNUMI Civil Issues September 18, 2006 Dixon Bogert

Proposed MI-14 Site Near MI-10

This week further refinements were made of the location plan, and sections of MI-14 and MI39 were prepared to show elevations and approximate kicker penetration routings. Straight penetrations for fluorinert and cooling water are not yet shown. Cost estimates were begun. FESS and AD/Elect Support needs information about the beamline power supplies, controls, etc.

Page 8: SNUMI Civil Design & Site Considerations; Issues and FESS work

8Fermilab SNUMI Civil Issues September 18, 2006 Dixon Bogert

Proposed MI-14 Site Near MI-10

As of 9/18/06

Page 9: SNUMI Civil Design & Site Considerations; Issues and FESS work

9Fermilab SNUMI Civil Issues September 18, 2006 Dixon Bogert

Section thru MI-14 Site Near MI-10

MI-14As of 9/18/06

Page 10: SNUMI Civil Design & Site Considerations; Issues and FESS work

10Fermilab SNUMI Civil Issues September 18, 2006 Dixon Bogert

MI-39(?) Kicker Building at MI-40

With respect to the second new kicker building that is required near MI-40 [MI-39(?)] this is what FESS was told: The second requirement is another 30’x50’ kicker building clone of F-17 tentatively called MI-39 located on the inside toe (or shoulder of the berm if the wetlands are too close) of the berm near quad 400. Access must be provided, perhaps using a modification of the existing access ramp to the berm top at MI-40. The location of MI-39 is shown in the following sketch. Power and communications ducts will be required, and possibly a transformer and switch. After a site visit, a better choice of location was thought possible.

Page 11: SNUMI Civil Design & Site Considerations; Issues and FESS work

11Fermilab SNUMI Civil Issues September 18, 2006 Dixon Bogert

MI-39(?) Location Near MI-40

This locationwas suggested in the original memo.It is in wetlands,and access is poor.

A possibly betterchoice is shownnext, but thecable runs will belonger, althoughacceptable (<200’).

Page 12: SNUMI Civil Design & Site Considerations; Issues and FESS work

12Fermilab SNUMI Civil Issues September 18, 2006 Dixon Bogert

MI-39(?) Alternate Location Near MI-40

Page 13: SNUMI Civil Design & Site Considerations; Issues and FESS work

13Fermilab SNUMI Civil Issues September 18, 2006 Dixon Bogert

Proposed MI-39 Site Near MI-40

During the week FESS developed a detailed site plan for the MI-39 kicker building, based upon discussions with stafffrom AD/Electrical Support.

The proposed building was set as shown last week outside of the FMI shielding berm. Discussions included thepower required for the kickers.

In this orientation, the kicker ducts enter the FMI bermdirectly from the back of the building.

Page 14: SNUMI Civil Design & Site Considerations; Issues and FESS work

14Fermilab SNUMI Civil Issues September 18, 2006 Dixon Bogert

Proposed MI-39 Site Near MI-40

Page 15: SNUMI Civil Design & Site Considerations; Issues and FESS work

15Fermilab SNUMI Civil Issues September 18, 2006 Dixon Bogert

Proposed MI-39 Site Near MI-40

Further refinements of the location were made after visits to the site located additional transformers not shown on the site drawings used as backgrounds for this work. The proposed MI-39 kicker building still fits, although it is tighter. Sections were made showing the kicker penetration routings; fluorinert and cooling straight penetrations are not yet shown. Cost estimates were begun by FESS.

Page 16: SNUMI Civil Design & Site Considerations; Issues and FESS work

16Fermilab SNUMI Civil Issues September 18, 2006 Dixon Bogert

Proposed MI-39 Site Near MI-40

As of 9/18/06

Page 17: SNUMI Civil Design & Site Considerations; Issues and FESS work

17Fermilab SNUMI Civil Issues September 18, 2006 Dixon Bogert

Section thru MI-39 Site Near MI-40

MI-39As of 9/18/06

Page 18: SNUMI Civil Design & Site Considerations; Issues and FESS work

18Fermilab SNUMI Civil Issues September 18, 2006 Dixon Bogert

F17 is a model for these Buildings

These drawings are taken fromProject 6-6-8A

Page 19: SNUMI Civil Design & Site Considerations; Issues and FESS work

19Fermilab SNUMI Civil Issues September 18, 2006 Dixon Bogert

4th Anode Supply Room at MI-60

The third phase 1 requirement is a fourth anode supply room at MI-60. Six more rf systems (2 more in the FMI, and 4 in the recycler) are to be added, increasing the demand by one third, raising the number of anode supplies from three to four. The west wall of MI-60 low bay is pretty crowded, and picking a spot that will be ‘safe’ in the event of a transformer blast/fire and allow room for feeder access to a new switch and the 4th anode supply transformer is tricky. It may be necessary to choose a spot that requires the construction of a blast/fire wall near or inside MI-60.

Page 20: SNUMI Civil Design & Site Considerations; Issues and FESS work

20Fermilab SNUMI Civil Issues September 18, 2006 Dixon Bogert

4th Anode Supply Room Location at MI-60

Possible blast/fire wallis required here.

Additional 4-bay switch almost certainly required

MI-60Hi-Bay

MI-60 Lo-Bay

Page 21: SNUMI Civil Design & Site Considerations; Issues and FESS work

21Fermilab SNUMI Civil Issues September 18, 2006 Dixon Bogert

4th Anode Supply Room Location at MI-60

FESS further developed the concept of locating the additionalanode supply room in the area immediately north of the MI-60high bay. A blast/fire wall was developed that could be placedimmediately north of the high bay wall and made part ofthe MI-60 high bay wall.

Page 22: SNUMI Civil Design & Site Considerations; Issues and FESS work

22Fermilab SNUMI Civil Issues September 18, 2006 Dixon Bogert

4th Anode Supply Room Location at MI-60

Page 23: SNUMI Civil Design & Site Considerations; Issues and FESS work

23Fermilab SNUMI Civil Issues September 18, 2006 Dixon Bogert

4th Anode Supply Room Location at MI-60

Page 24: SNUMI Civil Design & Site Considerations; Issues and FESS work

24Fermilab SNUMI Civil Issues September 18, 2006 Dixon Bogert

Buss Bar Insertion at MI-60

The fourth phase 1 item is a study of the possibility of creating roof hatches in the MI-60 rf low bay area to allow the insertion of additional buss bar packages down existing extra penetrations. At least at one location proposed it is likely that there is interference with the MI-60 high bay east wall. The location of the empty penetrations to house the proposed additional buss bars was translated unto a drawing for FESS to consider interferences at the exact proposed locations. This was done 9/8/06, and in both locations a fundamental interference with a “roof purlin beam” exists. This is seen on the next drawing. While possible to add additional purlin beams, and box out an opening for the passage of the buss bar, at the location opposite the high bay buss the bar would hit the east wall of the high bay as well. The initial recommendation is to fabricate the buss bar from shorter sections without removing fundamental interferences.

Page 25: SNUMI Civil Design & Site Considerations; Issues and FESS work

25Fermilab SNUMI Civil Issues September 18, 2006 Dixon Bogert

Buss Bar Insertion at MI-60

Note interference with roof purlin beam

Page 26: SNUMI Civil Design & Site Considerations; Issues and FESS work

26Fermilab SNUMI Civil Issues September 18, 2006 Dixon Bogert

Additional Cooling Pond at MI-60 Ponds A/B

The fifth phase 1 study item is the provision of additional pond cooling water acreage; this may not be absolutely necessary until phase 2. Two possibilities were mentioned during the discussion; the first created an additional return leg in the ponds A/B system called pond X (making an “E” rather than a “C”). A second possibility would extend pond supply and return pipes from the F-sector Tevatron ponds over to the MI-60 pond water heat exchangers. AD/Mechanical Support has been evaluating the cooling capacity of the MI-Ponds as-built. With information supplied by AD/Mechanical Support, it is now known that the enlarged cooling pond will not be necessary to support Phase 1 of SNUMI. Thus, the “Pond X” investigations are now designated Phase 2 work for FESS.

Page 27: SNUMI Civil Design & Site Considerations; Issues and FESS work

27Fermilab SNUMI Civil Issues September 18, 2006 Dixon Bogert

Additional Cooling Pond Location at MI-60

Pond A

Pond BPond “X”

MI-60

Page 28: SNUMI Civil Design & Site Considerations; Issues and FESS work

28Fermilab SNUMI Civil Issues September 18, 2006 Dixon Bogert

Phase 2 – Accumulator Connections

Phase 2 involves the use of the accumulator ring to coalesce multiple Booster batches (say 3) into a single batch and then load them ‘box-car’ style into the recycler during the FMI acceleration ramp. This requires the construction of two new transfer lines called AP-4 and AP-5. AP-4 parallels the historic route of the original AP-4 abandoned and destroyed when the Booster to FMI 8 GeV line was constructed in 1996. AP-5 is a new line that takes extracted protons from under AP-10 Building around a 100 degree arc back into the 8 GeV line just upstream of the access hatch near 817. The plan is to extract from the Booster connection enclosure using a pipe drilled through a longitudinal vertical side wall, with a beam line elevation held at 726.582’ which is the 8 GeV line elevation before the main downbend. That elevation brings the beam into the accumulator enclosure just above the floor level of 726’. AP-5 is a steady downslope carrying the beam from the accumulator elevation a few feet above the 726’ floor to the 8 GeV line elevation a few feet over the 712’ floor.

Page 29: SNUMI Civil Design & Site Considerations; Issues and FESS work

29Fermilab SNUMI Civil Issues September 18, 2006 Dixon Bogert

Phase 2 – Accumulator Connections (Cont.)

The new enclosures form a rough x. It is speculated that a common elevation might be achieved at the crossing. The existing 808 exit stairs could be incorporated. This study will need to consider life safety requirements, exiting, etc. for the new enclosures. Near the Booster end (upstream AP-4) there is a very crowded utility region with at least two primary corridors. To build the 8 GeV connection job 6-6-12 earth retention systems were installed to keep the excavation narrow and limit the utility bridge support lengths. It is supposed that the upstream end of the proposed AP-4 would need a similar excavation technique, although perhaps most of the other three arms of the X might be open cut. The following sketch is a rough suggestion of the AP-4 and AP-5 location.

Page 30: SNUMI Civil Design & Site Considerations; Issues and FESS work

30Fermilab SNUMI Civil Issues September 18, 2006 Dixon Bogert

Phase 2 – Accumulator Connections (Sketch)

Page 31: SNUMI Civil Design & Site Considerations; Issues and FESS work

31Fermilab SNUMI Civil Issues September 18, 2006 Dixon Bogert

Phase 2 – Accumulator Connections (Utilities)

The following picture was taken during the 6-6-12 excavation, and the utility support bridges are plainly visible, and the route of the proposed AP-4 is right into the picture.

Page 32: SNUMI Civil Design & Site Considerations; Issues and FESS work

32Fermilab SNUMI Civil Issues September 18, 2006 Dixon Bogert

Phase 2 – AP-4 Connection - 8 GeV Exit Point

The exit point from the 8 GeV enclosure is in the middle of the upper vertical wall over the sump alcove on the right of the following picture.

Page 33: SNUMI Civil Design & Site Considerations; Issues and FESS work

33Fermilab SNUMI Civil Issues September 18, 2006 Dixon Bogert

Phase 2 – AP-4 Connection - 8 GeV Exit Point

There is one possible interference from job 6-6-12 with the proposed extraction; a duct bank was built over the sump alcove and is shown in the following picture. The elevation of this duct bank needs to be determined from the 6-6-12 as-builts to see if the proposed extraction pipe will fit under the duct bank, or if the duct bank must be relocated.

Page 34: SNUMI Civil Design & Site Considerations; Issues and FESS work

34Fermilab SNUMI Civil Issues September 18, 2006 Dixon Bogert

FESS Deliverables

A Director’s Review of SNUMI is scheduled for mid November 2006. Phase 1 work should be pretty well developed for this review. For the civil work that would include fairly good definitions of the work and cost and schedule estimates, including the impacts on machine operations during phase 1 civil construction tasks. For the review, phase 2 work would possibly be less well developed, although sufficient development should have occurred to demonstrate the possibility and rough cost estimates available, with whatever caveats the state of the work at the time would require.

Page 35: SNUMI Civil Design & Site Considerations; Issues and FESS work

35Fermilab SNUMI Civil Issues September 18, 2006 Dixon Bogert

Remaining FESS Phase 1 workis only for the recycler

Cost and schedule estimates are being prepared now for the November Review. In advance of the Phase 1 estimates from FESS, Dixon made some “physicist quality” estimates that have been inserted in the Recycler cost and schedule tables as place holders.

Page 36: SNUMI Civil Design & Site Considerations; Issues and FESS work

36Fermilab SNUMI Civil Issues September 18, 2006 Dixon Bogert

FESS forwarded to SNUMI Management comments on DOE Space Offsets

The SNuMI Project must balance new construction with elimination of excess space, in keeping with the DOE SC Space Management requirements. This would be accomplished by phases:

Phase 1 new facilities: MI14 (75’ x 30’) 2250 sf MI39 (50’ x 30’) 1500 sf MI 60 anode supply room (10’ x 25’) 250 sf 4000 sf

Phase 2 new facilities: AP4 enclosure (8’ x 700’ long) 5600 sf AP5 enclosure (8’ x 300’ long) 2400 sf 8000 sf Planning for this preliminarily should include allowance for demolition of on-site space at a cost of $80/sf of straight construction cost. Therefore, the cost by phase would be:

Phase 1: 4000 sf @ $80/sf = $320,000 Phase 2: 8000 sf @ $80/sf = $640,000