| ||||||||||
|
LHCb 2001-066 EDR Report on the Engineering Design Review for the modules of the LHCb
Hadronic Calorimeter Present: R.Dzhelyadin, H.J.Hilke, J.Lefrançois,
T.Nakada, M.Nessi (referee), A.Schopper 1.
Introduction The engineering design of the HCAL modules has been
successfully reviewed Monday, March 5, 2001 by an external referee, Marzio
Nessi, CERN/EP. Following a number of questions that have been asked by the
referee prior to the review meeting (see Appendix), the sub-module and module
design and their assembly procedure, the structural integrity of the final
system, and the radiation resistance of the optics assembly were presented and
discussed in detail. All questions have been answered to the satisfaction of the
referee. It has been agreed that a meeting with the Technical Inspection and
Safety Commission will take place to discuss the manipulation of the modules and
the necessary tooling, before any installation work can start. Details of the
discussion are summarized in the following. 2.
Overview
The LHCb hadron calorimeter (HCAL) is a sampling device made out of steel and
scintillating tiles, as absorber and active material respectively. The special
feature of this sampling structure is the orientation of the scintillating tiles
that are running parallel to the beam axis. Wavelength shifting (WLS) fibers are
running along the edges of the scintillator tiles that are staggered in depth.
Readout cells of different size are defined by grouping together different sets
of fibers onto one photomultiplier tube that is fixed to the rear side of the
sampling structure. The HCAL is segmented into two sections with square cells of
size 131.3 mm and 262.6 mm. The optics is designed such that the two different
cell sizes can be realized with an absorber structure that is identical over the
whole HCAL. The absorber structure is self-supporting and is made from laminated
steel plates of various dimensions that are glued together. The periodic
structure of the system allows the construction of a large detector by
assembling smaller modules. The overall HCAL structure builds up as a wall with
dimensions of 6.8 m in height, 8.4 m in width and 1.65 m in depth. The structure
is divided into two symmetric parts that are positioned on movable platforms and
that can slide out perpendicular to the beam pipe. Each half is built from 26
modules that are piled up on top of each other in the final installation phase.
To facilitate the construction of modules, each module is sub divided into eight
sub modules that have a manageable size for being assembled from the individual
absorber plates. A total of 416 sub modules have to be produced to form
52 modules that will built up the two halves of the HCAL structure.
A hadron calorimeter of same type is under construction
for the ATLAS experiment. Even though the overall LHCb HCAL structure is very
different from the ATLAS one, the design of the sub modules of the two systems
is very similar. LHCb has greatly profited from the experience of ATLAS for the
module design and the prototype construction. The review was focusing on
potential problems that could arise from differences in the design of the two
systems. Dedicated engineering design reviews on the overall integration of the
calorimeter system and on its support structures are foreseen at a later stage
and are not part of this review. However, questions related to these items were
also addressed as far as they could affect the design of the modules. 3.
Summary 3.1 Sub module assembly on the beam Following the description in the calorimeter TDR, some
more details on the sub module assembly on the beam were requested. The detailed
assembly technique and precision requirements were reviewed. The absorber structure of a sub module is a laminate of
steel plates with a repetition of identical periods of 20 mm thickness. One
period consists of two 6 mm thick master plates with a length of 1283 mm and a
width of 260 mm that are glued in two layers to two sets of eight 4 mm thick
spacers of 256.6 mm width and variable length. A sub module has a total
thickness of 525.2 mm with a tolerance on the envelope of ±2 mm, which is achieved by requiring a tolerance of ±0.05 mm on the
thickness of the master and spacer plates. This tolerance, together with the
required flatness of the plates of 0.2 mm, guaranties sufficient space in
between the plates for hosting the (3 +0.1 -0.0) mm thick scintillating tiles. After gluing the master and spacers together, a sub
module is completed by welding two bars to both, the front and the back of the
structure. From previous experience it is known that this welding can cause the
bars to shrink and the sub module to deform. Welding from the center of a bar to
the outside in 2 cm steps can minimize this effect. From experience of
module-zero production the shrinking is well below 1.5 mm. This is within
tolerances and does not cause any problem for the subsequent optics assembly. The alignment of sub modules within a module was
discussed in some detail. A module is assembled from eight sub modules by
welding bars to the front and the back. Then a back holder is screwed to the
back of a ~4.2 m long module. Whilst the welded bars fix the relative position
of the sub modules, the back holder and a transversal strip at the front of each
module allow positioning the modules on top of each other. The question was
raised on whether it is necessary to weld a bar to the back of a module or
whether the back holder could directly hold together the sub modules. It was
argued, that the assembly procedure is much simplified when keeping the back
holder production independent from the module assembly. Results on detailed ANSYS calculations were presented,
showing that adequate safety factors were respected in the design of the back
holder and in the cross sections of the bars that are welded to the modules and
sub modules. It was agreed that all calculation results would be summarized in a
dedicated note by June 2001, which will facilitate discussions in a forthcoming
safety meeting. 3.2 Gap size between modules and space for fibers The modules are stacked on top of each other to form an
8.4 m high wall. After production, every module is numbered and his top and
bottom neighbour is defined. The modules are positioned relative to each other
residing on keys that are positioned at the back of the modules. The gap size in
between modules is defined to be 2 mm (distance from master to master plate) and
is adjusted by machining each key accordingly. The spacer plates are retracted
by 2.25 mm as compared to the edges of the master plates, and the scintillating
tiles by 2.0 mm respectively This allows hosting the 1.2 mm thick fibers that
are collecting the light along the edges of the scintillating tiles, without
being damaged while running along the sides of the spacer plates. The effect of the gap of 2 mm between modules on the
uniformity in response was discussed. Measurements in test beam have shown that
no degradation in the energy measurement is seen when scanning over several
modules with e.g. 50 GeV pions at various typical incident angles. 3.3 Structural integrity of final assembly
The details of the support structure and the overall integration of the HCAL
modules will be subject of dedicated engineering design reviews at a later
stage. However, the structural integrity of the final assembly was discussed in
some detail, and it was shown that the design of the individual modules is
coherent with the design of the overall mechanical structure. In particular the
positioning of modules on top of each other, and the insertion of steel tubes
that penetrate the modules at the place of the scintillating tiles for
calibration purposes, were explained.
The referee questioned the required tolerance of 40 mm on
the flatness of the ~4.2 m long back holder and suggested that 100 mm
should be sufficient. It was agreed that the final tolerance would be determined
from experience of the ongoing module 0 production. It was also agreed that the
forces on the keys situated in between modules are to be determined, taking into
account the current regulations for possible seismic events. There is still a margin of design that
could allow us to make the key system appreciably larger than foreseen at
present. Calculations will be available before the engineering design on support
structures, to finalize their size.
Furthermore, the manipulation during installation of the ~10 tons heavy modules
was discussed. A special tool has been designed for lifting and turning the
modules after assembly, and for manipulating them during installation. Details
on how the module is attached to the tool were discussed and it was agreed that,
prior to any installation work, the existing ANSYS calculations on the
mechanical stability of the tooling are going to be discussed with the safety
group at CERN. 3.4 Radiation resistance of the optics system The radiation resistance of the optics system was
reviewed. In the technical design report the behaviour under irradiation of all
optical components used in the HCAL are described in detail. However since the
TDR, polystyrene of type PSM-115 (that was foreseen for the scintillating tile
production) is no longer available on the market with the required optical
specifications. A candidate for replacement is the BASF-165H polystyrene. Its
resistance to radiation has been tested at the Serpukhov 70 GeV proton
synchrotron in the range of 0 to 1400 krad, and compared to PSM-115. It is shown
that the loss in light yield and in attenuation length versus radiation dose is
very similar for both polystyrene types, and that the HCAL performance under
irradiation is not expected to be affected by the choice of different
scintillating material. Referring to the TDR, the radiation hardness of the
different fiber types under consideration was also summarized. So far the fibers
were tested for total radiation doses of the order of 0.5 Mrad, which
corresponds to the expected dose for the cells closest to the beam after an LHCb
operation of about ten years. One fiber candidate shows clearly the highest
resistance to radiation, but cannot compete with the decay time of another
candidate. In order to determine the distance from the beam at which the fast
fiber would be sufficiently radiation resistant, a further test at lower
radiation doses of the order of 50 to 90 krad is foreseen in the near future.
3.5 Schedule of operations The expected production procedure and schedule was
discussed, presenting the design and status of all tooling and production
equipment to the referee. A lot of experience in sub-module production was
gained from building a total of six HCAL prototypes. From this experience and
since the start of module-0 production at the IHEP institute in Protvino, we are
confident to construct one module consisting of 8 sub modules within 2 weeks. A
total of 108 weeks is needed to assemble the required 432 sub modules and 54
modules (including two spares), which correspond to about 2.5 years with one
production line. If necessary an already existing second production line at
IHEP, which is currently still running for the ATLAS HCAL construction, could be
used for LHCb at a later stage.
Appendix: Questions by the referee
1) Give more details about the sub-module assembly on the beam
(precision requirements, assembly technique, etc.) 2) Give more details on the gaps size between modules and the
space for the fibers. 3) Describe the structural integrity of the final assembly. 4) What is the radiation resistance of the optics system? 5) Describe the schedule of operations.
|