structure update installation & building update revisions outlined costs revisited (since given...

Structure UpdateInstallation & Building Update

Revisions OutlinedCosts Revisited

(since given to Gina)

Jeff NelsonFermilab

9/03 OA4 - FNAL

• 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

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

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

Building up the detector

Next one here

9/03 OA4 - FNAL

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

Deflection and Stress in an Extreme Case

Maximum deflection is 0.9”

Maximum stress is 562 lbs

9/03 OA4 - FNAL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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$


9/03 OA4 - FNAL

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$


9/03 OA4 - FNAL

Some personal extras

9/03 OA4 - FNAL

Want more light?

• 0.8mm -> 1.0mm fibers • Gives 36% more light for $5M

9/03 OA4 - FNAL

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

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