Tevatron lcw cooling Reconfiguration Analysis Tevatron Decommissioning Activity

TEVATRON LCW COOLING RECONFIGURATION ANALYSIS

TEVATRON DECOMMISSIONING ACTIVITY

Abhishek Deshpande

09/29/2011

1

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

2

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

3

MOTIVATION

Diagrammatic illustration:

4

MOTIVATION

5

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

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

Total Heat Load Information

Lines Service Buildings Components Total Heat Load, kW

P1 or P150 MI52 Magnets, bus(1), and

power supplies

1700

P2 E4R, F1 Magnets, bus(1), and

power supplies

382

P3 F23, F27,F2, F3, F4 Magnets, bus(1), and

power supplies

1400

A0 A1 Laser lab loads ??

6

Notes:1.Bus heat load assumed to be 12 W/Ft

FUTURE FLOW DEMAND The design flow requirements for the Main Ring remnant can be

summarized in the following tables:

7

FUTURE FLOW DEMAND

8

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:

Actual F1 Flow RequirementType of Magnet

Irms, Amps

Resistance, mOhms Prms, kW

Max. dT cooling, 0F

Min. Flow, Gal/min Quantity

Total flow, Gal/min

IDA 700.00 0.82 0.40 17.00 0.16 0 0.00IDB 700.00 0.82 0.40 17.00 0.16 0 0.00B1 700.00 7.40 3.63 17.00 1.46 0 0.00B2 700.00 7.40 3.63 17.00 1.46 30 43.95

ILA Lambertsons 700.00 20.50 10.05 17.00 4.06 4 16.233Q84 700.00 4.50 2.21 17.00 0.89 8 7.13

3Q120 378.00 161.00 23.00 17.00 9.29 1 9.29Total flow, Gal/min (Including 20 GPM for power supply and 6 GPM for MR choke) 102.6


Irms, Amps


Max. dT cooling, 0F


Total flow, Gal/min

IDA 700.00 0.82 0.40 17.00 0.16 0 0.00IDB 700.00 0.82 0.40 17.00 0.16 0 0.00B1 700.00 7.40 3.63 17.00 1.46 15 21.97B2 700.00 7.40 3.63 17.00 1.46 16 23.44


3Q120 378.00 161.00 23.00 17.00 9.29 0 0.00Total flow, Gal/min (No power supplies, no MR chokes) 53.43

Continued…

FUTURE FLOW DEMAND

9


Irms, Amps


Max. dT cooling, 0F


Total flow, Gal/min

IDA 700.00 0.82 0.40 17.00 0.16 0 0.00IDB 700.00 0.82 0.40 17.00 0.16 0 0.00B1 700.00 7.40 3.63 17.00 1.46 16 23.44B2 700.00 7.40 3.63 17.00 1.46 16 23.44


3Q120 378.00 161.00 23.00 17.00 9.29 0 0.00Total flow, Gal/min, (Includes 1 power supply (20 GPM) and 1 MR choke (6 GPM)) 80


Irms, Amps


Max. dT cooling, 0F


Total flow, Gal/min

IDA 700.00 0.82 0.40 17.00 0.16 0 0.00IDB 700.00 0.82 0.40 17.00 0.16 0 0.00B1 700.00 7.40 3.63 17.00 1.46 16 23.44B2 700.00 7.40 3.63 17.00 1.46 16 23.44


3Q120 378.00 161.00 23.00 17.00 9.29 0 0.00Total flow, Gal/min, (Includes 2 power supplies (40 GPM) and 2 MR chokes (12 GPM)) 108.68

FUTURE FLOW DEMAND

10

Actual E4R Flow Requirement (Magnets only)Type of Magnet

Irms, Amps


Max. dT cooling, 0F


Total flow, Gal/min

IDA 700.00 0.82 0.40 17.00 0.16 4 0.65IDB 700.00 0.82 0.40 17.00 0.16 4 0.65B1 700.00 7.40 3.63 17.00 1.46 0 0.00B2 700.00 7.40 3.63 17.00 1.46 0 0.00


3Q120 378.00 161.00 23.00 17.00 9.29 0 0.00Total flow, Gal/min (Includes a total of 140 GPM to 3 power supplies) 141.3

Measured A0 Flow RequirementType of load

Measured Flow rate, Gal/min Measured dT , 0F Power, kW Quantity

Total flow, Gal/min

A0 L1 88.90 Almost none No Load?? 1 88.9A0 L2 19.00 Almost none No Load?? 1 19A0 L3 1.10 Almost none No Load?? 1 1.1A0 L4 1.10 Almost none No Load?? 1 1.1A0 L5 6.30 Almost none No Load?? 1 6.3A0 L6 9.70 Almost none No Load?? 1 9.7A0 L7 22.80 Almost none No Load?? 1 22.8

Total flow, Gal/min 148.9

Actual F 23 Flow RequirementType of load

Measured Flow rate, Gal/min Measured dT , 0F Power, kW Quantity

Total flow, Gal/min

Dyna Power 2.00 N/A N/A 13 26P=EI 5.00 N/A N/A 3 15Misc. 2.00 N/A N/A 2 4

Total flow, Gal/min 45

POSSIBLE SCENARIOS The following flow scenarios were modeled to find out if the actual

flow demand presented in the previous slides would be met:

1. Scenario 1: Pumps at F1 service building were turned on, while rest of the main ring pumps were turned off

2. Scenario 2: Only the pumps at E4 and F1 service buildings were turned on

3. Scenario 3: F0 pumps were piped into the main ring, and were turned on, while E4, F1, F2, F3, and F4 were turned off

4. Scenario 4: E4, F1, F2 pumps turned on

11

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… 12

METHOD OF APPROACH

13

E4 Enclosure

F1 Enclosure

F2 Enclosure

F3 Enclosure

F4 Enclosure

F0 Pump room

F23

A0 Loads

E4R

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

14

SCENARIO 1 (F1 PUMP RUNNING)

15

F1 Flow summaryTotal magnet flow (gal/min) 187.94 (50.54)1

Total power supply flow (gal/min) 30.73 (20)1

Total choke flow (gal/min) 17.06 (6)1

Total flow (gal/min) 235.72 (102.6)1


Total power supply flow (gal/min) 0.00Total choke flow (gal/min) 0.00Total flow (gal/min) 136.10 (53.43)1




Total flow (gal/min) 133.72 (80)1




CUB flow (gal/min) 41.27 (130)1


Notes:1.Actual required flow in parenthesis2.Addition of actual required flow and 130 GPM to CUB in parenthesis 3.Flow measured on 09/26/2011 in parenthesis

16

SCENARIO 1(F1 PUMP RUNNING)

E4R SummaryTotal magnet flow (gal/min) 89.96 (1.69)1

Total power supply flow (gal/min) 110.34Total flow (gal/min) 200.30

A0 SummaryTotal flow (gal/min) 45.02 (148.9)3

F 23 SummaryTotal flow (gal/min) 45.17 (45)3


SCENARIO 1(F1 PUMP RUNNING)

F1’s pump, 727 GPM @ 309 Ft of TDH (at pump’s run-off!!!)

17

Aurora Pump Curve (2.5 X 3 X 9)

SCENARIO 2 (F1 AND E4 PUMPS RUNNING)

18


















19

E4R SummaryTotal magnet flow (gal/min) 131.51 (1.69)1

Total power supply flow (gal/min) 161.31Total flow (gal/min) 292.82





F1’s Pump, 504 GPM @ 351 Ft.

E4’s Pump, 425 GPM @ 361 Ft.

20

BEP at 520 GPM @ 350 Ft. (76%)


SCENARIO 3 (F0 PUMPS RUNNING)

21




Total flow (gal/min) 174.27(102.6)1














22

E4R SummaryTotal magnet flow (gal/min) 112.70 (1.69)1 Total power supply flow (gal/min) 138.23Total flow (gal/min) 250.93





F0’s Pump1, 402 GPM @ 329 Ft. (point does not lie on pump curve)!!

F0’s Pump2, 366 GPM @ 330Ft. (point does not lie on pump curve)!!

23

Ingersoll Rand Pump Curve (4 X 9AS)

SCENARIO 4 (F1, F2, AND E4 PUMPS RUNNING)

24





F2 Flow summaryTotal magnet flow (gal/min) 197.48(53.43)1












SCENARIO 4 (F1, F2, AND E4 PUMPS RUNNING)

25

E4R SummaryTotal magnet flow (gal/min) 135.17 (1.69)1 Total power supply flow (gal/min) 165.80Total flow (gal/min) 300.97




SCENARIO 4

E4’s Pump, 360 GPM @ 365 Ft.

F1’s Pump, 328 GPM @ 369 Ft.

26

F2’s Pump, 356 GPM @ 367 Ft.

BEP at 520 GPM @ 350 Ft. (76%)


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

27

CONCLUSIONS

28

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

ROUGH TIME, LABOR, AND MATERIAL ESTIMATE

29

Activity: Cut, drain, and welding of headersTime: 2-3 weeksLabor: 2-4 water technicians and a welder, all working

full-timeMaterial: 6, Aluminum end caps,$95 each, a total of

$570 for 6 Aluminum welding rod, $27.71/Pound, a total

of $140 for 5 Pounds Bottle of Argon gas, $195

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

30

Tevatron lcw cooling Reconfiguration Analysis Tevatron Decommissioning Activity

Documents

Transcript of Tevatron lcw cooling Reconfiguration Analysis Tevatron Decommissioning Activity