TEVATRON LCW COOLING RECONFIGURATION ANALYSIS TEVATRON DECOMMISSIONING ACTIVITY

TEVATRON LCW COOLING RECONFIGURATION ANALYSIS TEVATRON DECOMMISSIONING ACTIVITY MEETING 2 1 Abhishek Deshpande 10/2011

OVERVIEW A 0’s flow requirements Flexible scenario that accommodates for HX cleaning; redundancy Scenarios simulated: Scenario A: 2 pumps at E 4 and 2 pumps at F 1 Scenario B: 2 pumps at F 1 and 2 at F 2 Scenario results Reconfiguration of F 1 and F 2 service buildings to have 2 pumps Conclusion 2

A 0’S FLOW REQUIREMENTS FINALIZED Spoke to John Reid about A 0’s flow requirements John stated that the current flows are higher than what is actually necessary John also said that the 4” LCW header at A 0 would need a minimum of 60 GPM @ 75 Psig One of the major loads: 3. 9 GHz Klystron, that needs 25 GPM of flow, most probably will be moved to NML Also, the heat load at A 0 is very small: 24 k. W 3

FLEXIBLE SCENARIO THAT ACCOMMODATES FOR HX CLEANING Service building 1 Service building 2 Pump 1: On Pump 2: Off Service building 1 Service building 2 Pump 1: Off Pump 2: Off Pump 1: On Pump 2: On Service building 1 Pump 1: On Pump 2: On Normal operation Service building 1’s HX being cleaned Service building 2 Pump 1: Off Pump 2: Off Service building 2’s HX being cleaned 4

SCENARIOS SIMULATED: SCENARIO A: 2 PUMPS AT E 4 AND 2 PUMPS AT F 1 All the flow rate requirements of the loads leading up to F 4 enclosure were satisfied, however, if 2 pumps were being operated at E 4 while F 1’s HX was being cleaned, the following flows were predicted at F 4 and A 0: F 4 service building summary for ( 2 Pumps at E 4) Loads breakdown Pessimistic Optimistic Most likely Min Req. Total flow through magnets, (gal/min) 36. 32 50. 85 43. 58 56. 68 Total flow through power supplies, (gal/min) 18. 94 26. 52 22. 73 40 Total flow through MR chokes, (gal/min) 4. 14 5. 80 4. 97 12 Flow to CUB, (gal/min) 35. 30 49. 42 42. 36 75 Total flow for service building, (gal/min) 94. 69 132. 57 113. 63 108. 68 A 0 load summary ( 2 Pumps at E 4) Loads breakdown Pessimistic Optimistic Most likely Min Req. A 0 L 1 23. 50 32. 89 28. 19 35 A 0 L 2 4. 98 6. 97 5. 98 N/A A 0 L 3 0. 29 0. 41 0. 35 N/A A 0 L 4 0. 29 0. 41 0. 35 N/A A 0 L 5 1. 66 2. 32 1. 99 N/A A 0 L 6 2. 53 3. 54 3. 03 N/A A 0 L 7 6. 02 8. 43 7. 23 N/A Total flow to A 0, (gal/min) 39. 27 54. 98 47. 13 60. 00 5

SCENARIOS SIMULATED: SCENARIO B: 2 PUMPS AT F 1 AND 2 PUMPS AT F 2 All the flow rate requirements of the loads leading up to F 4 enclosure were satisfied, and F 4 and A 0 flows are as below: Normal operation, one pump at F 1 and one at F 2 F 4 service building summary for ( One pump at F 1 and one pump at F 2) Loads breakdown Pessimistic Optimistic Most likely Min Req. Total flow through magnets, (gal/min) 92. 15 129. 01 110. 58 56. 68 Total flow through power supplies, (gal/min) 42. 25 59. 15 50. 70 40 Total flow through MR chokes, (gal/min) 9. 20 12. 87 11. 04 12 Flow to CUB, (gal/min) 76. 24 106. 74 91. 49 75 Total flow for service building, (gal/min) 219. 83 307. 76 263. 80 108. 68 A 0 load summary ( One pump at F 1 and one pump at F 2) Loads breakdown Pessimistic Optimistic Most likely Min Req. A 0 L 1 50. 74 71. 03 60. 88 35 A 0 L 2 10. 76 15. 07 12. 92 N/A A 0 L 3 0. 63 0. 88 0. 76 N/A A 0 L 4 0. 63 0. 88 0. 76 N/A A 0 L 5 3. 58 5. 02 4. 30 N/A A 0 L 6 5. 46 7. 65 6. 56 N/A A 0 L 7 13. 01 18. 21 15. 61 N/A Total flow to A 0, (gal/min) 84. 82 118. 74 101. 78 60. 00 6

SCENARIOS SIMULATED: SCENARIO B: 2 PUMPS AT F 1 AND 2 PUMPS AT F 2 F 1 service building’s HX being cleaned, 2 pumps running at F 2: F 4 service building summary for ( 2 Pumps at F 2) Loads breakdown Pessimistic Optimistic Most likely Min Req. Total flow through magnets, (gal/min) 87. 39 122. 35 104. 87 56. 68 Total flow through power supplies, (gal/min) 40. 13 56. 19 48. 16 40 Total flow through MR chokes, (gal/min) 8. 74 12. 23 10. 48 12 Flow to CUB, (gal/min) 72. 50 101. 51 87. 00 75 Total flow for service building, (gal/min) 208. 76 292. 27 250. 52 108. 68 A 0 load summary ( 2 Pumps at F 2) Loads breakdown Pessimistic Optimistic Most likely Min Req. A 0 L 1 48. 24 67. 53 57. 89 35 A 0 L 2 10. 23 14. 33 12. 28 N/A A 0 L 3 0. 60 0. 84 0. 72 N/A A 0 L 4 0. 60 0. 84 0. 72 N/A A 0 L 5 3. 41 4. 77 4. 09 N/A A 0 L 6 5. 19 7. 27 6. 23 N/A A 0 L 7 12. 37 17. 32 14. 84 N/A Total flow to A 0, (gal/min) 80. 64 112. 89 96. 77 60. 00 7

SCENARIOS SIMULATED: SCENARIO B: 2 PUMPS AT F 1 AND 2 PUMPS AT F 2 service building’s HX being cleaned, 2 pumps running at F 1: F 4 service building summary for ( Two pumps running at F 1) Loads breakdown Pessimistic Optimistic Most likely Min Req. Total flow through magnets, (gal/min) 70. 83 99. 17 85. 00 56. 68 Total flow through power supplies, (gal/min) 29. 80 41. 72 35. 76 40 Total flow through MR chokes, (gal/min) 6. 48 9. 07 7. 78 12 Flow to CUB, (gal/min) 54. 28 75. 99 65. 14 75 Total flow for service building, (gal/min) 161. 39 225. 95 193. 67 108. 68 A 0 load summary ( Two pumps running at F 1) Loads breakdown Pessimistic Optimistic Most likely Min Req. A 0 L 1 36. 06 50. 49 43. 28 35 A 0 L 2 7. 65 10. 71 9. 18 N/A A 0 L 3 0. 45 0. 63 0. 54 N/A A 0 L 4 0. 45 0. 63 0. 54 N/A A 0 L 5 2. 55 3. 56 3. 06 N/A A 0 L 6 3. 88 5. 43 4. 66 N/A A 0 L 7 9. 25 12. 95 11. 10 N/A Total flow to A 0, (gal/min) 60. 28 84. 40 72. 34 60. 00 8

RECONFIGURATION OF F 1 AND F 2 SERVICE BUILDINGS TO HAVE 2 PUMPS Unfortunately, F 1 and F 2 service buildings have only one pump per building: 9 Continued. .

RECONFIGURATION OF F 1 AND F 2 SERVICE BUILDINGS TO HAVE 2 PUMPS 10 Continued. .

RECONFIGURATION OF F 1 AND F 2 SERVICE BUILDINGS TO HAVE 2 PUMPS In order to get a fairly good estimate of installing another pump, I am currently working with SEA contractor Jose Rangel Jose said: All the connecting piping would be stainless steel and not aluminum To install one pump, and re-pipe the headers such that two pumps would run in parallel, it would require: Two contractors working full time Total number of 6” welds= 20 -25 11

RECONFIGURATION OF F 1 AND F 2 SERVICE BUILDINGS TO HAVE 2 PUMPS The completed something like: service building would look 12 Continued. .

RECONFIGURATION OF F 1 AND F 2 SERVICE BUILDINGS TO HAVE 2 PUMPS 13

RECONFIGURATION OF F 1 AND F 2 SERVICE BUILDINGS TO HAVE 2 PUMPS Importance of redundancy: According to Paul Czarapata, redundancy is not as important as it was during Tevatron’s Run II However, it is desirable because the following experiments would be expecting beam: The neutrino program 2 test beams at Meson Special projects It costs close to $60, 000/hr to run the accelerator complex, and if there is no redundancy the accelerator complex would have to be down for 3 -4 days Thus, a comparatively small investment to accommodate redundancy would prove to be fruitful from an operations perspective 14

CONCLUSIONS Using E 4 service building would not provide sufficient flow to all the loads in the MR remnant Having 2 pumps at F 1 and F 2 would work for us Redundancy is not as important as it was, but its still desirable Future plans: There is talk about using the A and B Tevatron sectors for a Plasma Accelerator project There is also talk about IARC (Illinois Accelerator Research Center) using Tevatron’s cooling system water If these plans get approval, then Scenario B (2 pumps at F 1 and F 2) will not work 15

Questions, comments. . 16