Hi Renuka,
Below are the messages from the “veteran”/emeritus physicist (M. Harrison …) who was responsible for building RHIC (along with O. Satoshi et. al.). It’s probably of interest only in historical
point of view 😊
Kin
From: Wanderer, Peter <wanderer AT bnl.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 10:19 AM
To: Anerella, Michael D <mda AT bnl.gov>; Gupta, Ramesh C <gupta AT bnl.gov>; Yip, Kin <kinyip AT bnl.gov>
Cc: Wanderer, Peter <wanderer AT bnl.gov>
Subject: FW: design seismic load at BNL ?
Kin – FYI.
Peter
Hi Peter,
There are no explicit BNL requirements on seismic load. We don’t get earthquakes. Thus we had no design requirements on the magnets from that point of view. Transportation was considered and the magnets were expected to handle ~0.2 g
lateral but that was a post-facto analysis rather than an explicit criterion. I can’t remember where the 0.2 number came from, possibly from measurements on a flat bed or SLAC. We did consider lateral forces in the design of the RHIC magnet stands and used
the same number.
Probably the best analysis came from the LHC shipping requirements which I can’t remember but Mike A might be able to help there.
Mike – did you ever worry about the seismic load at RHIC?
Dear Peter and all,
For BaBar, I saw that their seismic loads (design) are 1.2 g (horizontal) and 2.0 g (vertical).
When you design magnets at BNL, what are these nos. (correspondingly) ? Or, we just don't worry about
the seismic factor at BNL ?
Kin
-------- Forwarded Message --------
|
Subject:
|
|
|
Date:
|
Tue, 26 Jan 2021 20:58:14 +0000
|
|
From:
|
|
|
To:
|
|
|
CC:
|
|
California is in earthquake zone. probably that's why these numbers are higher.
I am sure RHIC magnets (and other sub components) mush have been designed to some seismic standard, I am looking for that number.
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:
Do you have any seismic calculations from the BABAR magnet? Please see below.
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.
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.
Michael D. Anerella, P.E.
Chief Mechanical Engineer
Superconducting Magnet Division
Brookhaven National Laboratory
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
You are of course welcome. If I can be of any help going forward please ask. Good luck.
Michael D. Anerella, P.E.
Chief Mechanical Engineer
Superconducting Magnet Division
Brookhaven National Laboratory
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
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.
Michael D. Anerella, P.E.
Chief Mechanical Engineer
Superconducting Magnet Division
Brookhaven National Laboratory
|
