CM 34 RAL 17th – 19th October 2012 P. J. Smith

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
MICE Magnetic Investigation of T2 MICE/ISIS Target Meeting 17 th September 2010 P J Smith – University of Sheffield.
Advertisements

1 UK Project Alan Grant, STFC. Finance How savings are made Update on stepIV position Milestones Critical Path - stepIV Concerns 2.
Project Managers Update Roy Preece Particle Physics Department, STFC MICE Video Conference, 18 th September 2014.
1 Simulation Status/Plans Malcolm Ellis Sci Fi Tracker Meeting Imperial College, 10 th September 2004.
MICE Hall – South Mezzanine Jason Tarrant - STFC l Contents »Device checks with current South Mezzanine »South Mezzanine change summary »Conclusion.
Step IV Infrastructure update STFC Tim Hayler Eddie Holtom Norbert Collomb Graham Stokes 14 th December 2011 MICO170 meeting 1Tim Hayler.
MICE: Hall Infrastructure Chris Nelson CEng CM16 8 th Oct 2006.
1 MICE PM Report General Update –Phase I civil engineering –R5.2 in June –Phase II design work –Phase II hardware –A few questions –Schedule, milestones.
Tracker Solenoid Module Design Update Steve VirostekStephanie Yang Mike GreenWing Lau Lawrence Berkeley National LabOxford Physics MICE Collaboration Meeting.
1 MICE PM Report Installations to date Future installation work Preparations for Phase Two Target status MICE Video Conference, 22nd May, 2008.
Magnetic Field Studies Dan Karmgard for the HCAL RBX Group.
1 Status of infrastructure MICE Video Conference, August 17, 2005 Yury Ivanyushenkov Applied Science Division, Engineering and Instrumentation Department.
(FEA) Analysis P J Smith University of Sheffield 27 th November 2008.
MICE magnetic measurements Sequence of events and MICE hall movements Alain Blondel – 10-April 2012 revision from 13 December 2012.
MICE CM30 Magnetic Shielding Update Mike Courthold 6 th July
INFO 637Lecture #31 Software Engineering Process II Launching & Strategy INFO 637 Glenn Booker.
1 MICE CM28 STEP III or STEP IV? – some practicalities Andy Nichols/Tim Hayler, STFC 4 th October 2010 Considerations Step II Step III Step IV Conclusions.
1 Summary of MICE beamline & hall installations This is a very rough summary of the progress since mid-December Richard Apsimon & Andy Nichols MICO meeting.
Alan Grant OsC 30/4/ UK Project Finance & Schedule.
MICE - UK Project Progress Roy Preece 30 th April 2013.
1 MICE PM Report Phase One installations to date Phase One remaining items Progress with Phase Two Phase Two planning sequence Worries Don’t have time.
MICE CM30 Magnetic Shielding Update Mike Courthold 6 th July
MICE MICE Magnet Modelling - Presentation to the Daresbury Magnetics Group Daresbury Laboratory 31 st January 2013 P J Smith University of Sheffield.
1 MICE - INFRASTRUCTURE MICO meeting 7 th February 2008 Tim Hayler.
MICE Magnetic Field Mitigation Review Potential impact on ISIS of MICE Stray Magnetic Fields 24 th September 2013 Martin Hughes.
1 MICE PM Report Completion of Infrastructure Target, solenoids Phase Two planning & schedule Non-MICE costs Staffing & visitors Don’t have time for a.
Preparations in the MICE hall Video Conference 25 th June 09 Tim Hayler Andy Lintern Peter Lau Geoff Barber.
Magnetic Shielding Issues Roy Preece STFC - RAL. Overview Issues Items in harms way – Step IV Step IV mitigation plan –Racks –Compressors Current / Future.
MICE CM32 8 th February 2012 Magnet Group Report Vicky Bayliss Victoria Blackmore John Cobb Mike Courthold Roy Preece Mike Zisman 1.
Magnetic Shielding Roy Preece. Issues Cooling channel initially designed without return yolks. Current North and South shielding walls designed to encapsulate.
Undulator Orientation & Electron Beam Spacing Should the undulator frames be toward the central aisle or the tunnel walls? What is the optimum spacing.
MICE Specification of the Stray Field Issue and the MICE Hall Model P J Smith 23 rd September 2013.
Magnetic Mitigation - Contents l Magnetic Mitigation General l West Wall Compressors l Rack Room 2 l Magnetic Shielding Yoke Jason Tarrant – Integration.
MICE magnetic measurements: AFC considerations Alain Blondel see a previous discussion for reference in CM35 (Feb 2013 slides by V. Blackmore, A. Blondel.
MICE VC Alain Blondel 1 MICE NEWS MICE VC Spectrometer solenoid 2. Magnetic shielding 3. Next Collaboration meeting.
Andrew Moss ASTeC CM32 9t h February 2012 RAL MICE RF System.
1 MICE Hall construction status Richard Apsimon MICE VC meeting 29th Nov 2007.
1 MICE Hall and Infrastructure - Progress since CM18 Chris Nelson MICE CM19 Oct 2007.
1 MICE PM Report Summary since CM21 Decay solenoid Infrastructure progress Step One Installation Worries MICE Video Conference, 19 th June, 2008.
Hydrogen Pre-Operation Safety Review 4 th October 2011 The Hydrogen Delivery System – An Introduction M Hills.
MICE Project Report Alan Bross (for Paul Drumm). Project Issues ● Key dates: – ISIS Synchrotron start-up scheduled for 1st August ● Shielded area around.
CM27 – 8 th July 2010 LH2 System Progress and Future Plans M Hills T Bradshaw M Courthold I Mullacrane P Warburton.
Pre-CM33 schedule planning SuperMICO meeting, June 6th Motivation: For all of us to understand the main drivers behind the top-level MICE schedule So that.
OsC mtg 24/4/2014 OsC mtg Alan Grant. 2 OsC mtg 24/4/ MICE Finances - Forward Look.
1 Mice Collaboration Meeting CM33 Glasgow University 25 th – 29 th June 2012 STFC Daresbury Laboratory Electrical Infrastructure Report Authors : Ian Mullacrane.
Contents Jason Tarrant STFC Aim of Presentation to show: l Problem of compressors located at south shield wall l Description of compressor layout and services.
1 Project Infrastructure for steps I-III Tim Hayler, STFC – RAL MICE Collaboration Meeting, RAL, nd October 2008.
MICE CM32 25 th February 2012 Magnet Group Report Vicky Bayliss Victoria Blackmore John Cobb Mike Courthold Roy Preece Mike Zisman 1.
MICE Magnetic Modelling CM 35 RAL 14 th – 16 th February 2013 P. J. Smith.
OsC mtg 15/10/2014 MICE Step IV Alan Grant. Content Step IV – Construction Status – Finances – Schedule – Risks – Summary 2.
1 UK Project Roy Preece – STFC Alan Grant, STFC. Finance Staffing Update on stepIV position Milestones Critical Path – stepIV Magnetic field mitigation.
1 MICE PM Report Phase One installations to date Phase One remaining items Progress with Phase Two Worries Don’t have time for a detailed status report,
1 Implementation at RAL Iouri Ivaniouchenkov on behalf of Elwyn Baynham, Tom Bradshaw, Tony Jones, Jim Rochford Engineering Department, RAL MICE Collaboration.
This presentation will describe the state of each element in the beam line with regards to the current update being undertaken. Firstly, it will describe.
Schedule and Milestones Roy Preece STFC RAL FAC 17 th April 2015.
1 UK Project Finance & Schedule. Overview Finance  Budget Setting 2013/14  June Finance  Forward look to complete stepVI Schedule  Overview 2.
1 MICE CM29 Engineering Summary Cooling channel moving platforms – Norbert Floor Beams and plates – Andy L Magnetic modelling – Mike RF Engineering – Andy.
MICE Magnetic Modelling CM 36 IIT 17 th – 19 th June 2013 P. J. Smith.
Online – Data Storage and Processing
MICE CM28 Engineering Session Summary (On behalf of Wing)
Status of the MICE Construction Project
Outcome of the Review and Response to Recommendations
Magnetic Field Mapping
Specification of the Stray Field Issue and the MICE Hall Model
Project Controls: As-Built S-Curves
MICE CM31 Schedule summary
MICE PM Report Progress with the Infrastructure A few problems
Control Racks Behind Nth Shield Wall modelled with
Estimating with Confidence
Module Recognition Algorithms
Presentation transcript:

CM 34 RAL 17th – 19th October 2012 P. J. Smith Magnetic Modelling CM 34 RAL 17th – 19th October 2012 P. J. Smith

P. J. Smith - Dept of Physics and Astronomy, University of Sheffield Introduction From discussion at the previous collaboration meeting it was clear that we needed an improved magnetic model of the MICE Hall to help us both understand and resolve the issues that we have. Since late July I have been putting together a full 3D model of the MICE Hall (with a lot of help from others) which has been designed to represent both the geometry and ferrous masses within the MICE Hall as accurately as possible. A lot of progress has been made on this model. We are now able to use this model to produce plots that highlight areas of interest. …however, the model is not yet complete and so any solutions presented must not be ‘over-interpreted’ or taken as gospel. The model needs validating. It is clearly a high priority to get the model into a state where is produces results that we can both trust and use. 17/10/2012 P. J. Smith - Dept of Physics and Astronomy, University of Sheffield

P. J. Smith - Dept of Physics and Astronomy, University of Sheffield Contents What we are using to model the MICE Hall & its limitations. What objects have gone into the model and what remains to go into the model. Validating the Hall model. Using the Hall model. So what do we want to model? Examples of output from the model. Time and motion… 17/10/2012 P. J. Smith - Dept of Physics and Astronomy, University of Sheffield

P. J. Smith - Dept of Physics and Astronomy, University of Sheffield The Modeller To model the MICE hall we are using a magnetic FEA program called OPERA of which many of you will be familiar, the output plots from OPERA have been discussed/shown at previous CMs before. OPERA is not a CAD program, so whilst it will allow you to input the geometry of the MICE hall to any detail you like, the geometry needs to be subsequently ‘meshed’ for the FEA to do it’s work. The resolution of the mesh is determined by the resolution of the geometry – i.e. higher detail requires a higher mesh size. Of course the total number of meshing elements go to the cube of the resolution, which significantly impacts upon the time it will take for the program to solve the problem. The MICE hall is big! Getting the meshing right so that the program produces a good mesh and solves in a tractable time is 90% of the problem with using FEA….compromises have to be made. 17/10/2012 P. J. Smith - Dept of Physics and Astronomy, University of Sheffield

P. J. Smith - Dept of Physics and Astronomy, University of Sheffield What is in the Model? What’s in the model/What we want to put in the model Ferrous Components/ Non Ferrous Components Ferrous Components Beam Dump Floor Web D2 DSA Steel North Shield Wall Q4-Q9 (Solid Blocks) South Shield Wall Virostek Plates EMR (Inaccurate) Quad Bases in Cellar Linac Wall SW Distribution Board Steel Door to MICE Hall North Mezzanine Non - Ferrous Components Hall Floor Hall Roof Hall Walls Solenoids Step IV (S-mode) Solenoids Step VI (S-mode) Cellar Trench 17/10/2012 P. J. Smith - Dept of Physics and Astronomy, University of Sheffield

What we wish to add to the model Screenshot Ferrous Components South Mezz Stairs PPS Cages (may not be possible) Flooring above the trench False Floor Behind North Shield Wall (Almost Done!) Quad Bases and Floor plate West Wall Stairs Steel Framework? Non - Ferrous Components Outline of MLCR Outline of ISIS CR (Basically South End structures) Solenoids Step IV (F-mode) Solenoids Step VI (F-mode) 17/10/2012 P. J. Smith - Dept of Physics and Astronomy, University of Sheffield

P. J. Smith - Dept of Physics and Astronomy, University of Sheffield Model of the MICE Hall 17/10/2012 P. J. Smith - Dept of Physics and Astronomy, University of Sheffield

P. J. Smith - Dept of Physics and Astronomy, University of Sheffield Validating the Model How (when) will we know that the model is giving us results that we can trust? This is a good question…but I don’t yet have all the answers to this. I don’t think that this is a black and white issue – I think the model will go through a series of refinements (and sub models) which will allow us to improve on the model over time. The model is currently under version control, so old models can be revisited and checked as improvements are made. These revisions are stored publicly on ‘Launchpad’. https://launchpad.net/micehalloperaproject 17/10/2012 P. J. Smith - Dept of Physics and Astronomy, University of Sheffield

P. J. Smith - Dept of Physics and Astronomy, University of Sheffield Validating the Model We are taking a proactive approach though to ensuring that the model is as representative as possible. Geometry is taken from technical drawings of the MICE Hall and is as representative as possible within the meshing limitations discussed earlier This process is then cross-checked. OPERA outputs a .sat file (CAD) which is then checked against the original drawings for discrepancies. As long as discrepancies are smaller than meshing resolution then we are ok. Using other part models that are in existence to check the sanity of the output. Should be in rough agreement. Considering using data obtained from experimental tests? 17/10/2012 P. J. Smith - Dept of Physics and Astronomy, University of Sheffield

P. J. Smith - Dept of Physics and Astronomy, University of Sheffield Validating the Model Materials – This is a little easier. Acquiring BH curves for individual materials within the hall is not really possible (or would be difficult and expensive) and so the appropriate but approximate BH curves need to be used. Generally these approximations will tend to be fairly representative. Mild Steel, Good Quality Steel, Reduced Mild Steel Air (This is used for all non-ferrous components) The variation in BH curves is small (although large enough difference between good iron and poor iron that it is worth modelling) 17/10/2012 P. J. Smith - Dept of Physics and Astronomy, University of Sheffield

P. J. Smith - Dept of Physics and Astronomy, University of Sheffield Using the Hall model. At the moment it is just myself coding for this particular model and Mike Courthold is doing some modelling work using other models. There are many, many (probably 100’s) of scenarios that we need to cover and explore… Each run of the model with all the components in takes 1-2 days of CPU time… Clear need to parallelise/speed up the time it takes to obtain a solution. The resolution of the Hall model is mesh size dependent. Can increase mesh size but it comes at large cost in terms of computational time. There is a desire to independently develop some areas of interest at higher resolution 17/10/2012 P. J. Smith - Dept of Physics and Astronomy, University of Sheffield

P. J. Smith - Dept of Physics and Astronomy, University of Sheffield Using the Hall model. There are a number of mechanisms and means by which we hope we can tackle this problem. The model is built from scripts so the production of models can to some extent be automated. – This is useful as we have several licenses at RAL which means that several models can be run in parallel. The model has been built in such a manner that each ferrous object can be switched in or out of the model. Once it is determined which ferrous objects has an effect in the area of interest, then it is possible to switch off the ones that are of limited use in a model, reducing solve time. We are exploring using the Hall model to generate the local fields within a given area and then exporting those fields for use in higher resolution models. This in principle means that other higher resolution models can be built independently and then uses the Hall field as their starting point. We have the offer of some additional modelling help from Daresbury to assist here. 17/10/2012 P. J. Smith - Dept of Physics and Astronomy, University of Sheffield

P. J. Smith - Dept of Physics and Astronomy, University of Sheffield What do we want to model? Pretty much everywhere in the hall needs looking at! Clear focus on Step IV. We are compiling a list of areas/components of specific interest. Examples: LH2 delivery systems, Q9 power supply, HV rack, Control rack for compressors, Vacuum pumps, Substation, Equipment on the roof, General Field Map Of West Wall, General Field Map of North Wall, Field Maps at Tracker Cryostat locations, Field map at Tracker rack locations, Field Map inside Trench. If there are particular items that you are concerned about then please feel free to come and talk to me. 17/10/2012 P. J. Smith - Dept of Physics and Astronomy, University of Sheffield

Examples of Output from the Model Given that the model is not complete and adding fairly big chunks of iron can have a large effect on the resulting output I’ve been quite reticent to produce plots of the MICE hall, although understandably that’s what you all want to see… However my arm has been twisted… however please don’t reproduce these plots for all the reasons discussed in this presentation! These are quite random but highlight a couple areas of interest. 17/10/2012 P. J. Smith - Dept of Physics and Astronomy, University of Sheffield

Overview of Hall – 15000 gauss 17/10/2012 P. J. Smith - Dept of Physics and Astronomy, University of Sheffield

Overview of Hall – 5000 gauss 17/10/2012 P. J. Smith - Dept of Physics and Astronomy, University of Sheffield

Overview of Hall – 1000 gauss 17/10/2012 P. J. Smith - Dept of Physics and Astronomy, University of Sheffield

P. J. Smith - Dept of Physics and Astronomy, University of Sheffield West Wall Example This is a really OLD model from early September. Much iron missing. Scale is 0 -> 1E-4 Tesla. West Wall looks fine in air. 17/10/2012 P. J. Smith - Dept of Physics and Astronomy, University of Sheffield

P. J. Smith - Dept of Physics and Astronomy, University of Sheffield West Wall Example A more recent model with all iron removed in the plot – Interesting because it gives some preliminary idea of what to expect when iron is placed along the West wall. 17/10/2012 P. J. Smith - Dept of Physics and Astronomy, University of Sheffield

Slice through beam axis Step IV sol 240MeV/c Q9 Quad Bases Missing TOF cage missing Quad model is probably too simplistic Slice through beam axis Step IV sol 240MeV/c A good example showing the necessity to improve the model before conclusions can be drawn! 17/10/2012 P. J. Smith - Dept of Physics and Astronomy, University of Sheffield

P. J. Smith - Dept of Physics and Astronomy, University of Sheffield South Wall The field in air along the south wall from a more recent model – 10 gauss scale. All iron material has been removed from the plot to aid visibility. 17/10/2012 P. J. Smith - Dept of Physics and Astronomy, University of Sheffield

P. J. Smith - Dept of Physics and Astronomy, University of Sheffield Time and Motion… It is my hope that within the next few weeks a good portion of the structural iron will be in the model and we can then start to look at how we can validate the model. Mike is also working hard on understanding and automating the exporting fields from the model to be used in sub-models. This will allow others to get involved in the coding. The magnetic group will then determine what areas/problems we wish to prioritise our efforts on understanding. 17/10/2012 P. J. Smith - Dept of Physics and Astronomy, University of Sheffield

P. J. Smith - Dept of Physics and Astronomy, University of Sheffield Conclusions Good progress has been made on constructing a more accurate model of the MICE Hall. There is a lot of work that is ‘in progress’ and the model requires a significant amount of refinement. We are now looking towards validation of the model and preparing a mechanism by which sub models can be built using the field values output from the hall model as boundary conditions on the sub model. For those who have access to OPERA the hall model is held in a repository at: https://launchpad.net/micehalloperaproject 17/10/2012 P. J. Smith - Dept of Physics and Astronomy, University of Sheffield