Improved anchoring of SSS with vacuum barrier to avoid displacement Ofelia Capatina (speaker), Katy Foraz (coordinates all the activities), Antonio Foreste,

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
1 AFSWG Mtg 15 Aug 2003 Elwyn Baynham RAL Safety Overview Work done by RAL Group Contributors Elwyn Baynham Tom Bradshaw Iouri Ivaniouchenkov.
Advertisements

SPL Intercavity support Conceptual design review 04/11/ A. Vande Craen TE/MSC-CMI.
Material choice Ofelia Capatina OC, Material choices Discuss material choices for – Helium tank – Flanges, joints, bellow OC,
H. MAINAUD DURAND, A. HERTY, A. MARIN, M. ACAR PERMANENT MONITORING OF THE LHC LOW BETA TRIPLETS: LATEST RESULTS AND PERSPECTIVES.
Felix Wamers, Technical Coordination Meeting, 12 th -13 th of May CERN-GSI Technical Coordination Meeting Felix Wamers, Yu Xiang,
Vacuum, Surfaces & Coatings Group Technology Department Cleanness of the 3-4 cold beam lines Outline:  History: Status of 2009 cleaning  Foreseen and.
1 Presented at ColUSM by D. Ramos on behalf of the Cold Collimator Feasibility Study Working Group Longitudinal.
Interface issues on Super-FRS magnets test at CERN
Laurent Tavian Thanks to contribution and helpful discussions with M. Jimenez, V. Parma, F. Bertinelli, J.Ph. Tock, R. van weelderen, S. Claudet, A. Perin,
ALIGNMENT OF Q2 LOW BETA QUADRUPOLES D. Missiaen, On behalf of the EN-MEF-SU/MTI team 1.
LINAC 4 Project L4T/L4Z Design Status J.Humbert / B.Riffaud on behalf of EN-MME design team 1 st September 2011 LINAC4 – BEAM COORDINATION COMMITTEE B.Riffaud.
The Sector 3-4 incident at the LHC: fault tree and corrective measures Ph. Lebrun Risk Analysis Review Committee CERN, 5 March 2009.
Reinforced Concrete Design
FP 420 Connection Cryostat Design and Integration Keith Potter, Jaak Lippmaa, Guido Ryckwaert, Benoit Florin, Thierry Renaglia, Thierry Colombet, Shrikant.
Helium Spill Test in LHC tunnel to define length of restricted working areas  Actual situation  Evolution  How to continue  Set-up of the spilling.
LHC Status ReportLHC Status Report Lyn Evans 96 th LHCC meeting, CERN 19 th November 2008.
A. Siemko and N. Catalan Lasheras Insulation vacuum and beam vacuum overpressure release – V. Parma Bus bar joints stability and protection – A. Verweij.
Insulation vacuum and beam vacuum overpressure release Insulation vacuum and beam vacuum overpressure release V.Parma,TE-MSC, with contributions from:
Structural option for the Jinping neutrino central detector Contributor : Yuanqing Wang, Zongyi Wang Speaker : Zongyi Wang Department of civil engineering,
Hydrogen system R&D. R&D programme – general points Hydrogen absorber system incorporates 2 novel aspects Hydrogen storage using a hydride bed Hydrogen.
Workshop Chamonix XIV Shortcuts during installation and commissioning: risk and benefit H. Gruehagen, G. Riddone on behalf of the AT/ACR group 18 January.
Cryogenics in SPS & LHC (2 K / 4.5 K) LHC-CC11, 14 November 2011 L. Tavian, CERN, TE-CRG With the contribution of N. Delruelle, G. Ferlin & B. Vullierme.
M. Karppinen TE-MSC-ML on behalf of S. Atieh, P. Cruikshank, M. Duret, J-C. Perez, V. Parma, T. Renaglia, S107, S108, Dubna teams Pressure relief valve.
CLIC survey and alignment 1 CLIC CES meeting STARTSLIDE CLIC SURVEY AND ALIGNMENT Hélène MAINAUD DURAND.
CERN status - Nb cavity – Manufacturing 1 15/Nevember/2010, Ofelia Capatina EN/MME 1 SPL Cavity Working Group Meeting TaskExternal Company CERN Provide.
Brookhaven - fermilab - berkeley US LHC ACCELERATOR PROJECT LHC IRQ Inner Triplet Review Q1, Q2, and Q3 Mechanics T. Nicol April 24-25, 2007.
7/23/ J.Coupard. 1) Cryogenic risks 2) Cryogenic phases from RT/floating to nominal and additional safety rules A. Sectors warmed-up to RT or considered.
Workshop Chamonix XV27-January-2006 DivonneMassimiliano Ferro-Luzzi 1 State of LHCb for the Sector Test  Overview  Agreement  Status of –VELO –exit.
C. Garion Presentation Outline  Overview of the inner triplet interconnections  Q1/Q2, Q2/Q3 interconnections  General view  Working conditions  Compensation.
Inner Triplet Review April 2007 Inner Triplet Supports Sonia Bartolomé Jiménez (TS/IC)
1 Sector Test – Preparation Layout in LSS7 Jan Uythoven (AB/BT) Thanks to Mike Lamont and the other ‘sector testers’
The cryogenic system of the HIE-ISOLDE project and its related hazards for persons N. Delruelle on behalf of the TE/CRG group HIE-ISOLDE Safety Review.
Work Organisation for Splice Consolidation Francesco Bertinelli 20 minutes presentation, 10 minutes discussion: 12 slides First LHC Splice Review, CERN,
The integration of 420 m detectors into the LHC
Mike Struik / LHC-CRI INSTRUMENTATION FEEDTHROUGH SYSTEM FOR LHC MACHINE ARC QUADRUPOLE MAGNETS. 123rd LHC Vacuum Design Meeting 19 April 1999.
Interface of FP420 to LHC FP420 meeting 28-Sep-2006.
The HiLumi LHC Design Study is included in the High Luminosity LHC project and is partly funded by the European Commission within the Framework Programme.
TE-CRG Activities D. Delikaris, TE-CRG.
Cryogenic Cooling Schemes for the SPL U. Wagner TE-CRG.
Cryogenic scheme, pipes and valves dimensions U.Wagner CERN TE-CRG.
Proposed integration of cryo BLMs in LHC during LS1 V.Parma, CERN, TE-MSC With contributions/input from: M.Sapinski (BE-BI) Th.Renaglia (EN-MME) N.Bourcey.
Duy Phan, EN-STI-RBS. Description of the hazards  An Oxygen Deficiency Hazard (ODH) exists when the concentration of O2 ≤ 19.5 % (by volume)  Cold burns.
LMC 1 (Pre Chamonix) DN200 relief valve position DN200 relief valve position On top wherever possible. Open W bellows for MLI protection. On top wherever.
Scope of CERN SC RF Activities Status Report for A&T Sector Meeting 18 Nov’13 BE, TE, EN Departments Summarized by José Miguel JIMENEZ 1 BE-RF (E. Jensen*,
LHC Machine Advisory Committee Meeting no.19 QRL status 16 June 2006 G. Riddone, AT-ACR On behalf of the QRL team.
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OF D2 MECHANICAL STRUCTURE (DOUBLE COLLARING OPTION) S. Farinon, P. Fabbricatore (INFN-Sezione di Genova) Sept. 24 th 2015.
A. Perin TE-CRG, 06 April LMC 08 April 2009 Consolidations related to pressure protection on DFBs and DSLs A. Perin, TE-CRG.
Overview of the ESS Linac Cryogenic Distribution System
ColUSM #63 18 th September, 2015 D. Ramos, C. Mucher, L. Gentini, H. Prin, Q. Deliege, A. Bastard, J. Hrivnak.
Bruno Vullierme Sept LHC-CC09 - 3rd LHC Crab Cavity Workshop Slide 1 CRAB CAVITY INTEGRATION CRYOGENICS INSTALLATION.
Workshop on cryogenic & vacuum sectorisation of the SPL Vacuum Sectorisation Paul Cruikshank, CERN Technology Department (TE) Vacuum Surfaces & Coatings.
Cavity Supporting Scheme Paulo Azevedo, CERN – TE/MSC SPL Conceptual Review, 04/11/2010.
ILC : Type IV Cryomodule Design Meeting Main cryogenic issues, L. Tavian, AT-ACR C ryostat issues, V.Parma, AT-CRI CERN, January 2006.
ALIGNMENT OF THE NEW TRIPLETS
News and Introduction from CERN June 15th, 2005
Roadmap for triplet cryostats
BA6 – crab cavity activities in EYETS
Internal review of IR2 LEP cryostats (WP11/WP5) Close out session
Installation of an Instrument on a CERN machine
Status of design and production of LEP connection cryostat
A. Vande Craen, C. Eymin, M. Moretti, D. Ramos CERN
INSTALLATION SEQUENCE
Update of cryogenic activities
M. Alcaide Leon, Paolo Fessia
Consequences of warming-up a sector above 80 K
Keeping LHC cold during LS periods Preliminary proposal
Cryogenic Risk Assessment in LHC
The 11T cryo-assembly: summary of design and integration aspects
Block 4 and Cluster D - Safety
Design and integration of safety equipment and safety aspects in the LHC tunnel (cryogenic safety only) Vittorio Parma Th.Otto.
Presentation transcript:

Improved anchoring of SSS with vacuum barrier to avoid displacement Ofelia Capatina (speaker), Katy Foraz (coordinates all the activities), Antonio Foreste, Vittorio Parma, Thierry Renaglia, Jean-Pierre Quesnel LHC Performance Workshop - Chamonix 2009, 3 February 2009

2 O. Capatina EN/MME et al., Chamonix, 3rd of February 2009 Overview Introduction Initial requirements and actual SSS supporting Updated requirements and improved supporting design Planning and costs Next weak point? Conclusion

3 Introduction Incident on 19 th of September 2008 => failure of some supports of SSS in sector 3-4 due to longitudinal loads O. Capatina EN/MME et al., Chamonix, 3rd of February 2009

4 Initial requirements and actual SSS supporting Each SSS is installed on 1 jacks for longitudinal alignment + 2 for transversal alignment; The 3 jacks are used for vertical alignment O. Capatina EN/MME et al., Chamonix, 3rd of February 2009

5 Initial requirements and actual SSS supporting Alignment done by geometers after installation O. Capatina EN/MME et al., Chamonix, 3rd of February 2009

6 Initial requirements and actual SSS supporting Each SSS is installed on 1 jacks for longitudinal alignment + 2 for transversal alignment; The 3 jacks are used for vertical alignment O. Capatina EN/MME et al., Chamonix, 3rd of February 2009

7 Initial requirements and actual SSS supporting Vacuum sectorisation for one LHC sector Vacuum barrier in 13 SSS / sector (Q11R&L, Q15R&L, Q19R&L, Q23R&L, Q27R&L, Q31R&L, Q33R) A total of 104 SSS with vacuum barrier O. Capatina EN/MME et al., Chamonix, 3rd of February 2009

8 Initial requirements and actual SSS supporting Vacuum vessel/vacuum barrier designed for 0.15 MPa internal pressure Supporting system should withstand loads induced by differential pressure on both sides of vacuum barrier: –Nominal operation: up to Δp = 0.1 MPa –Exceptional : up to Δp = 0.15 MPa Δ p = 0.1 MPa across vac. Barrier  80 kN at the jacks (tested value) jack O. Capatina EN/MME et al., Chamonix, 3rd of February 2009

9 Initial requirements and actual SSS supporting Supporting system should withstand –Nominal operation up to 80 kN longitudinally (≡ 0.1 MPa) –Exceptional operation up to 120 kN longitudinally (≡ 0.15 MPa) Actual SSS supporting system: –Designed for 80 kN and tested in the tunnel for a longitudinal load up to 90 kN –Test done once in surface building up to 120 kN (not documented) Sonia Bartolome et al., tests done in the LHC tunnel, June 2003 O. Capatina EN/MME et al., Chamonix, 3rd of February 2009

10 O. Capatina et al., Chamonix, 3rd of February 2009 Initial requirements and actual SSS supporting Actual SSS supporting system: –Tested failure tensile loads of anchors120 kN to150 kN Ok for nominal operation Failure limit for exceptional conditions (~ 150 kN) No concrete damage observed Sonia Bartolome et al., tests done in the LHC tunnel, June 2003 O. Capatina EN/MME et al., Chamonix, 3rd of February 2009

11 Updated requirements and improved SSS supporting Sect.3-4 incident: estimate (see pres. Ph. Lebrun session 01) pressure inside vessels (on one side of vacuum barrier): 0.7 MPa (x 4.6 design pressure) => Improvements of security relief valves proposed (see pres. V. Parma session 04) different form warm / cold sectors Updated design pressure (see pres. V. Parma session 04) New configuration on cold sectors: 13 DN100, 2 DN90, 4 DN63 New configuration on warm sectors: 12 DN200, 4 DN100, 2 DN90 (DP: Design Pressure) L. Tavian New design pressure O. Capatina EN/MME et al., Chamonix, 3rd of February 2009

12 Updated requirements and improved SSS supporting Updated design pressure 0.3 MPa for SSS anchoring. Why? –Covers an important area of possible events –Very high but feasible value of longitudinal loads to be considered for the new anchor design kN; –The chain of elements vacuum barrier / cold foot / jack should be equilibrated Design of vacuum barrier for 0.15 MPa with security factor 3 => confident that it withstands 0.3 MPa Cold foot tests showed no failure up to 70 kN equivalent to 0.3 MPa jack O. Capatina EN/MME et al., Chamonix, 3rd of February 2009

13 Updated requirements and improved SSS supporting Requirements for the design of the improved SSS anchors –Withstand longitudinal load of 240 kN –Possibility to install the system on SSS already on jacks Reduced space under the SSS – very difficult for drilling –Accessibility for alignment Estimation of realignment every year –Allow thermal contraction of vacuum tank in case of accident –Allow space for other foreseen equipment under the SSS –Uninstalling the system should allow SSS removal if needed Transport / installation zones to be taken into account –Optimize price –Feasibility within general planning O. Capatina EN/MME et al., Chamonix, 3rd of February 2009

14 Updated requirements and improved SSS supporting Several solutions have been studied –1 st solution – distribution of the longitudinal load among the 3 jacks O. Capatina EN/MME et al., Chamonix, 3rd of February 2009

15 O. Capatina et al., Chamonix, 3rd of February 2009 Updated requirements and improved SSS supporting Several solutions have been studied –1 st solution – distribution of the longitudinal load among the 3 jacks –No cryostat thermal contraction allowed

16 O. Capatina et al., Chamonix, 3rd of February 2009 Updated requirements and improved SSS supporting –2 nd solution – bloc additional fixation to the ground – only shear loads transmitted to the floor –Poor accessibility to jacks for alignment

17 O. Capatina et al., Chamonix, 3rd of February 2009 Updated requirements and improved SSS supporting –3 rd solution – bloc additional fixation to the ground and to the cryostat – only shear loads transmitted to the floor –Necessitates special installation procedure (monitored by geometers) to avoid vacuum tank deformation

18 Updated requirements and improved SSS supporting –4 rd solution – the final one O. Capatina EN/MME et al., Chamonix, 3rd of February 2009

19 Updated requirements and improved SSS supporting –Final solution – equivalent stress O. Capatina EN/MME et al., Chamonix, 3rd of February 2009

20 Updated requirements and improved SSS supporting –Final solution – deformation O. Capatina EN/MME et al., Chamonix, 3rd of February 2009

21 Updated requirements and improved SSS supporting –Final solution – reaction loads –Contact on single jack guaranteed O. Capatina EN/MME et al., Chamonix, 3rd of February 2009

22 Updated requirements and improved SSS supporting –Final solution – reaction loads –Ground fixation system tested this morning in SX4 O. Capatina EN/MME et al., Chamonix, 3rd of February 2009

23 Updated requirements and improved SSS supporting –Final solution – one ground fixation system tested in SX4 –Up to 380 kN applied longitudinally and 230 kN applied vertically (traction) during 10 min (1.5 x design load if only one side charged) => no visible damage observed M. Guinchard and A. Foreste, tests done in SX4, February 2009

24 Planning considerations Prototype –Manufacturing complete prototype w7-8 –Test prototype w9 LHC installation –Hypothesis Conservative hypothesis that drilling not allowed when liquid helium Installation = same risk as alignment operations (ok with liquid helium) –Drilling 2 weeks / sector starting in week 11 for sector 2-3 –Overall installation 2 weeks / sector within the general planning –Alignment check of SSS after system installation: a total of 25 days ok with general planning O. Capatina EN/MME et al., Chamonix, 3rd of February 2009

25 Costs 104 systems to be manufactured and installed –System: 104 x 5’000 CHF 520’000 CHF –Ground fixation: 42’000 CHF –Manpower Drilling: 104 x 4 x 6 x 62 CHF 155’000 CHF Installation: 104 x 2 x 8 x 62 CHF 103’000 CHF –Equipment for drilling and installation: 27’000 CHF –Alignment: 20’000 CHF –Total for 8 sectors 867’000 CHF Rmq transport operations not included O. Capatina EN/MME et al., Chamonix, 3rd of February 2009

26 Next weak point? The anchoring of SSS with vacuum barrier have been discussed If new cryostat design pressure 0.3 MPa instead of 0.15 MPa, what about the other equipments? DFBA O. Capatina EN/MME et al., Chamonix, 3rd of February 2009

27 Next weak point? DFBA –Calculations done by A. Bertarelli in 2006 for a vessel design pressure of 0.15 MPa absolute (0.05 MPa relative) –The new design pressure of 0.3 Mpa (0.2 MPa relative) multiplies the applied loads by a factor 4 Shuffling module vacuum vessel – with the new design pressure the tank will plastify locally but should not get to failure The “negative fixator” (external support) will fail Fixation very difficult to improve due to lack of space Alessandro Bertarelli DFBA calculations done in 2006 O. Capatina EN/MME et al., Chamonix, 3rd of February 2009

28 Conclusions The design of the improved anchoring of SSS with vacuum barrier has been presented It was designed to withstand 240 kN longitudinally, equivalent to 0.3 MPa of differential pressure on both sides of the vacuum barrier The system is foreseen to be installed in “warm” sectors too as an additional safety device The installation of the equipments will be within the global planning The total cost will be of about 867’000 CHF, transport not included Open questions –What happens if Δp > 0.3 MPa ? : cold foot, vacuum barrier damaged before external anchoring damage… –We are very confident that vacuum barrier and cold foot withstand the load equivalent to 0.3 MPa but it has never been demonstrated –Next week point could be the DFBA… –What about other elements (such as all “special” cryostats of the LSS, jumper vacuum barrier …)? O. Capatina EN/MME et al., Chamonix, 3rd of February 2009

29 Thank you ! … in particular Lucio for his patience and advices O. Capatina EN/MME et al., Chamonix, 3rd of February 2009