From: Mills, James A <mills AT bnl.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2021 6:00 PM
To: Than, Yatming (Roberto) <ythan AT bnl.gov>; Yip, Kin <kinyip AT bnl.gov>
Cc: Mills, James A <mills AT bnl.gov>
Subject: RE: seismic analysis
HI guys,
Sorry you were not on the original distribution. I responded earlier today with the following:
From: Mills, James A <mills AT bnl.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2021 1:15 PM
To: McIntyre, Gary T <mac AT bnl.gov>; Hock, Jonathan <jhock AT bnl.gov>; Chan, David <dchan AT bnl.gov>;
Ilardo, Matthew <milardo AT bnl.gov>
Cc: Drees, Angelika <drees AT bnl.gov>; Witte, Holger <hwitte AT bnl.gov>; Renuka Rajput-Ghoshal <renuka AT jlab.org>;
Anerella, Michael D <mda AT bnl.gov>; Mills, James A <mills AT bnl.gov>
Subject: RE: BaBar magnet
Hi Gary,
We have incorporated a prescriptive approach to seismic loads that the sPHENIX detector could potentially be exposed to and have therefore become part of our design guidelines. This goes back to my days
working on the STAR magnet and other detector components of RHIC during the 90’s. It was adopted by both the STAR and PHENIX mechanical engineers, though possibly at slightly different design values. For sPHENIX we have tried to design components to meet
an additional seismic 0.25g force in each of 3 orthogonal positions. I hope this helps.
Best regards,
Jim
Hope all is well with you both. Have a nice evening.
Jim
Jim and John must have used something for the carriage.
We also were given a acceleration load for cryo.
I cannot remember the value.
I misunderstood the question.
Renuka is actually wondering whether we at BNL have any design standard for seismic loads (for building a magnet) ? If so, what is it ?
I wonder whether Jim Mills or Mike Anerella or anybody knows ?
-------- Original message --------
Date: 1/26/21 17:20 (GMT-05:00)
Subject: Re: seismic analysis
California seismic requirements is pretty hefty, compared to BNL.
They are in zone 4, and were are I think 2B?
Hi,
Roberto once separated out this PDF file for Seismic analysis/report from Babar for PCSS review and I still leave it here:
https://www.c-ad.bnl.gov/kinyip/download/PCSS/SPHENIX%20SC%20SOLENOID%20SEISMIC%20Analysis.pdf
There were quite some analyses there.
From the TDR (Table 9-8), it's mentioned that the seismic load factors are
1.2 g (horizontal) and 2.0 g (vertical) --- these were originally designed for the BaBar expt. in California of course.
Kin
On 1/26/21 12:58 PM, Hock, Jonathan wrote:
Kin,
Do you have any seismic calculations from the BABAR magnet? Please see below.
Thank You!
From: McIntyre, Gary T
<mac AT bnl.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2021 12:54 PM
To: Mills, James A <mills AT bnl.gov>; Hock, Jonathan
<jhock AT bnl.gov>; Chan, David
<dchan AT bnl.gov>; Ilardo, Matthew <milardo AT bnl.gov>
Cc: Drees, Angelika <drees AT bnl.gov>; Witte, Holger
<hwitte AT bnl.gov>; Renuka Rajput-Ghoshal
<renuka AT jlab.org>; Anerella, Michael D <mda AT bnl.gov>
Subject: Re: BaBar magnet
I hope this finds you and your families doing well.
Do any of you have the seismic information that Renuka Rajput-Ghoshal of JLab is looking for? See message thread below.
"I need some information about the seismic load for the design purpose for the magnet at BNL.
Please let me know if you have the data for the seismic load requirement for magnet design.
I assume the information sought is of the IR8 experimental hall.
Please let me know if you can help with this request.
I hope someone will have this information.
Hi Renuka,
I do not have the information you requested. I am copying Holger Witte, Gary McIntyre and Angelika Drees, my EIC technical contacts who may be of assistance.
Regards,
Mike
Michael D. Anerella, P.E.
Chief Mechanical Engineer
Superconducting Magnet Division
Brookhaven National Laboratory
17 Cornell Avenue
Building 902A
Upton, NY 11973
631-344-7291
mda AT bnl.gov
I hope you are doing well.
I need some information about the seismic load for the design purpose for the magnet at BNL.
Please let me know if you have the data for the seismic load requirement for magnet design.
From: Anerella, Michael D <mda AT bnl.gov>
Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2020 6:56 AM
To: Renuka Rajput-Ghoshal <renuka AT jlab.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: BaBar magnet
Renuka,
You are of course welcome. If I can be of any help going forward please ask. Good luck.
Regards,
Mike
Michael D. Anerella, P.E.
Chief Mechanical Engineer
Superconducting Magnet Division
Brookhaven National Laboratory
17 Cornell Avenue
Building 902A
Upton, NY 11973
631-344-7291
mda AT bnl.gov
Yes, we all are doing well and hope you are well too.
About BaBAR magnet, yes, I noticed that the coil is divided in the 3 sections, and the end sections have higher current density (by narrowing the cable).
About the new magnet design, this is very preliminary design, I am still working to optimize the design. I will surely consider the design ideology of BaBAR magnet too. Thanks for pointing
this out.
From: Anerella, Michael D <mda AT bnl.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2020 8:06 AM
To: Renuka Rajput-Ghoshal <renuka AT jlab.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] BaBar magnet
Hi Renuka,
I hope you are well - I enjoyed your talk yesterday.
I have a question for you regarding the BaBar magnet. It is not significant so as to change your plans, but I could not tell from your slides or your description. I realize you/TJNAF have conducted significant research in this
regard, but are you aware that the magnet coil has increased current density in the ends to extend the uniform field region? This is accomplished by splicing conductor in the ends with half the amount of aluminum, providing a closer spacing of superconductor,
i.e., without adding turns above as is shown in the new magnet design. Maybe you know this already; if not, I hope it helps.
Regards,
Mike
Michael D. Anerella, P.E.
Chief Mechanical Engineer
Superconducting Magnet Division
Brookhaven National Laboratory
17 Cornell Avenue
Building 902A
Upton, NY 11973
631-344-7291
mda AT bnl.gov
|
