1 / 30

Tevatron lcw cooling Reconfiguration Analysis Tevatron Decommissioning Activity

Tevatron lcw cooling Reconfiguration Analysis Tevatron Decommissioning Activity. Abhishek Deshpande 09/29/2011. Overview. Motivation Future heat loads Future flow demand Possible scenarios Method of approach Results Scenario 1(F1 pump running) Scenario 2 (F1 and E4 pumps running)

janice
Download Presentation

Tevatron lcw cooling Reconfiguration Analysis Tevatron Decommissioning Activity

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Tevatronlcw cooling Reconfiguration AnalysisTevatron Decommissioning Activity Abhishek Deshpande 09/29/2011

  2. Overview • Motivation • Future heat loads • Future flow demand • Possible scenarios • Method of approach • Results • Scenario 1(F1 pump running) • Scenario 2 (F1 and E4 pumps running) • Scenario 3 (F0 pumps running) • Scenario 4 (F1, F2, and E4 pumps running) • Conclusions • Time, Labor, and Material Estimate (simplified) • Acknowledgements

  3. Motivation • After September 30th 2011, when the Tevatron shuts down, it will not be necessary to pump water through all 24 service buildings • However, the Main Ring remnant (F+ Sector) has to be operational to support rest of the accelerator complex • Running all 24 pond pumps to keep the water in the ponds flowing just to cool the Main Ring remnant would be costly • It would be prudent to use an alternate, smaller pond, situated close to F0, F1 service buildings, to provide cooling to the Main Ring remnant • Thus, a flow analysis was undertaken to determine if one or more service buildings in the F-sector could provide cooling to the entire Main Ring remnant

  4. Motivation Diagrammatic illustration:

  5. Motivation http://www.fnal.gov/pub/visiting/map/site.html

  6. Future heat loads • The future worst case heat load was determined by Dan Wolff et.al, and it is summarized in the table below: • Worst case is when all the magnets, with an exception of 3Q120s, are operated at an RMS current of 700 Amps • Since P150 line is being cooled by MI52, the actual heat load is approximately 1800 kW Notes: Bus heat load assumed to be 12 W/Ft

  7. Future flow demand • The design flow requirements for the Main Ring remnant can be summarized in the following tables:

  8. Future flow demand • The actual calculated flow requirements, when the magnets are operated at 700 Amps of RMS current, for the Main Ring remnant can be summarized in the following tables: Continued…

  9. Future flow demand

  10. Future flow demand

  11. Possible scenarios • The following flow scenarios were modeled to find out if the actual flow demand presented in the previous slides would be met: • Scenario 1: Pumps at F1 service building were turned on, while rest of the main ring pumps were turned off • Scenario 2: Only the pumps at E4 and F1 service buildings were turned on • Scenario 3: F0 pumps were piped into the main ring, and were turned on, while E4, F1, F2, F3, and F4 were turned off • Scenario 4: E4, F1, F2 pumps turned on

  12. Method of approach • An incompressible fluid modeling tool; AFT Fathom 7.0 was used to model all the loads connected to E4, E4R, F1,F23, F2,F3,F4, A0 and A1 cooling systems • Drawings from MDS’s drafting database were used to determine the pipe, bus routing • Individual bus lengths and diameters were determined • Flow resistance curves for all the components; magnets, chokes, power supplies, etc. were generated • Pump curves, HX curves were taken from the manufacturer’s manuals • All of the above data and more were fed into the model, and was simulated…

  13. Method of approach F0 Pump room E4 Enclosure E4R F1 Enclosure F23 F2 Enclosure A0 Loads F3 Enclosure F4 Enclosure

  14. Results • A summary of flows through the magnets, chokes, and the power supplies of all the service buildings for all scenarios will be presented • Also, the operation points on the pump curves for all the scenarios will be presented

  15. Scenario 1 (F1 Pump running) Notes: Actual required flow in parenthesis Addition of actual required flow and 130 GPM to CUB in parenthesis Flow measured on 09/26/2011 in parenthesis

  16. Scenario 1(F1 Pump running) Notes: Actual required flow in parenthesis Addition of actual required flow and 130 GPM to CUB in parenthesis Flow measured on 09/26/2011 in parenthesis

  17. Scenario 1(F1 Pump running) Aurora Pump Curve (2.5 X 3 X 9) F1’s pump, 727 GPM @ 309 Ft of TDH (at pump’s run-off!!!)

  18. Scenario 2 (F1 and E4 pumps running) Notes: Actual required flow in parenthesis Addition of actual required flow and 130 GPM to CUB in parenthesis Flow measured on 09/26/2011 in parenthesis

  19. Scenario 2 (F1 and E4 pumps running) Notes: Actual required flow in parenthesis Addition of actual required flow and 130 GPM to CUB in parenthesis Flow measured on 09/26/2011 in parenthesis

  20. Scenario 2 (F1 and E4 pumps running) Aurora Pump Curve (2.5 X 3 X 9) E4’s Pump, 425 GPM @ 361 Ft. F1’s Pump, 504 GPM @ 351 Ft. BEP at 520 GPM @ 350 Ft. (76%)

  21. Scenario 3 (F0 pumps running) Notes: Actual required flow in parenthesis Addition of actual required flow and 130 GPM to CUB in parenthesis Flow measured on 09/26/2011 in parenthesis

  22. Scenario 3 (F0 pumps running) Notes: Actual required flow in parenthesis Addition of actual required flow and 130 GPM to CUB in parenthesis Flow measured on 09/26/2011 in parenthesis

  23. Scenario 3 (F0 pumps running) Ingersoll Rand Pump Curve (4 X 9AS) F0’s Pump2, 366 GPM @ 330Ft. (point does not lie on pump curve)!! F0’s Pump1, 402 GPM @ 329 Ft. (point does not lie on pump curve)!!

  24. Scenario 4(F1, F2, and E4 pumps running) Notes: Actual required flow in parenthesis Addition of actual required flow and 130 GPM to CUB in parenthesis Flow measured on 09/26/2011 in parenthesis

  25. Scenario 4 (F1, F2, and E4 pumps running) Notes: Actual required flow in parenthesis Addition of actual required flow and 130 GPM to CUB in parenthesis Flow measured on 09/26/2011 in parenthesis

  26. Scenario 4 Aurora Pump Curve (2.5 X 3 X 9) F2’s Pump, 356 GPM @ 367 Ft. F1’s Pump, 328 GPM @ 369 Ft. E4’s Pump, 360 GPM @ 365 Ft. BEP at 520 GPM @ 350 Ft. (76%)

  27. Conclusions • Scenario 1 (only F1 pump running) can be eliminated, for the pump would be operating at its run-off • Scenario 2 (E4 and F1 pumps running) looks promising as both the pumps would be operating close to the BEP of the pump • Scenario 2 can work for us if A0 is alright with 3 times the present temperature difference across its loads. • However, in this scenario the power supplies at F4 would get 25 GPM of total flow--they need 40 GPM. And the MR chokes would get a predicted 5.5 GPM of total flow--they need 12 GPM • This can be sorted out by performing minor piping modifications • Scenario 3 (F0 pumps running) can also be eliminated as it is unrealistic • Scenario 4 (F1, F2, and E4 pumps running) comes closest to meeting the actual calculated demand for all the loads • However, again A0’s 148.9 GPM demand is not met • If A0 is alright with 2 times the present temperature difference across its loads, this scenario can work

  28. Conclusions • Two more scenarios were simulated: • Scenario 5 (E4, F1, F2, and F4 pumps running) predicted the total flow at A0 to be 150.57 GPM, current flow at A0 is 148.9 GPM • Scenario 6 (E4, F1, F2, and F3 pumps running) predicted the total flow at A0 to be 83.58 GPM, current flow at A0 is 148.9 GPM • If A0’s present flow demand needs to be met, Scenario 5 (E4, F1, F2, and F4 pumps running) is recommended • One can also discuss the possibility of placing A0 on a separate cooling system, and choose Scenario 2 or 4 • All the service buildings have heat exchangers with a maximum capacity of 2.9 MW at 600 GPM and 34 0F ∆T of DI water. Heat dissipation is not difficult, but providing flow to the loads is a challenge

  29. Rough Time, Labor, and Material Estimate

  30. Acknowledgements • EE Support: • Dan Wolff • Steve Hays • Bob Brooker • Operations: • Todd Johnson • Walter Kissel • Paul Allcorn • Donovan Tooke • Technical Division: • Oliver Kiemschies • ADMS: • Maurice Ball • Karl Williams • Bob Slazyk • Tim Hamerla • Denny Schmitt • Raul Campos • Tom McLaughlin • John Sobolewski

More Related