1 Infrastructure at RAL Iouri Ivaniouchenkov, RAL MICE Collaboration CERN, 29 March 2003

2 Scope of presentation MICE solenoid mode : First results from magnetic simulation done by Jim Rochford Infrastructure : Hydrogen system diagram Layout : Status

3 MICE Collaboration CERN, 29 March 2003 Magnetic field profile for the final MICE stage

4 MICE Collaboration CERN, 29 March 2003 Solenoid mode : Field profile Current densities as in stage 6 Current densities adjusted

5 MICE Collaboration CERN, 29 March 2003 Fringe fields for the MICE final stage Fringe fields for final MICE: 5 gauss - R~6800 mm, Z~13400 mm

6 MICE Collaboration CERN, 29 March 2003 Solenoid mode: Fringe fields Fringe fields for modified solenoid mode: 5 gauss - R~14900 mm, Z~21000 mm Fringe fields for solenoid mode: 5 gauss - R~14200 mm, Z~19900 mm

7 MICE Collaboration CERN, 29 March 2003 Fringe fields: Magnetic shielding Flux lines from unshielded coils (MICE Stage 6) Flux lines from shielded coils with a cylindrical, 10mm thick steel shield, D=10m.

8 MICE Collaboration CERN, 29 March 2003 Fringe fields: Magnetic shielding 5 gauss Field detail in the shield region for the different thickness of steel cylinder modelled.

9 MICE magnetic field: Conclusion MICE Collaboration CERN, 29 March 2003 MICE will produce magnetic field which extends outside experimental hall: Configuration 5 Gauss Line Final MICE R~6800 mm, Z~13400 mm Solenoid mode R~14200 mm, Z~19900 mm Modified solenoid mode R~14900 mm, Z~21000 mm Magnetic simulations are under way. First results show that shielding can be achieved by using steel cladding in the hall.

10 MICE Collaboration CERN, 29 March 2003 Infrastructure : Hydrogen system

11 MICE Collaboration CERN, 29 March 2003 Hydrogen system design Hydrogen supply and safety system (as copied from M.Green’s paper)

12 14 K He from Cold box H 2 Gas bottle Liquid level gauge LH 2 Absorber Vacuum Vacuum vessel LHe Heat exchanger 12 litre Buffer tank P P Fill valve Large vacuum tank Volume: 84 m 3 (for all 3 absorbers) Pressure < 0.1 mbar VP Vent outside flame arrester Hydrogen flow and safety system (based on Mike Green’s diagram) 19 K Window 70 K Safety window Vent valve 1.7 bar 2.1 bar N 2 Purge system P PP VP Vacuum pump Bursting disk Pressure relief valve Valve Pressure regulator Pressure gauge Non-return valve 18 K He to Compressor via Radiation shield MICE Collaboration CERN, 29 March 2003

13 Hydrogen flow and safety system (another approach used in the RAL hydrogen target systems) PP VP Vacuum pump Bursting disk Pressure relief valve Valve Pressure regulator Pressure gauge 18 K He to Compressor via Radiation shield 14 K He from Cold box Liquid level gauge LH 2 Absorber Vacuum Vacuum vessel LHe Heat exchanger 12 litre Buffer tank Internal Window 70 K Safety window H 2 Gas bottle P P Fill valve Hydrogen tank Volume: 11 m 3 Pressure > 0.1 bar Vent outside flame arrester He / N 2 Purge system Non-return valve Vent outside flame arrester Vent valve 1.7 bar 2.1 bar H 2 Detector P P P P Evacuated vent buffer tank Volume: VP P X 2 VP

14 MICE Collaboration CERN, 29 March 2003 Hydrogen flow and safety system: Comparison of two approaches Design philosophy ask Mike Closed system : - absorber and hydrogen tank compose one single volume; - hydrogen is either in gas tank (as gas) or in absorber (as liquid); - pressure is always higher then atmospheric M.Green’s ApproachRAL’s Approach Absorber working conditions T LH2 = 19 K => P>1.1 bar abs => P =0.63 bar abs T LH2 > 20.8 K Absorber filling from hydrogen gas tank /bottle from hydrogen tank Absorber empting to vacuum tank then venting to air to hydrogen tank then can be re-used

15 MICE Collaboration CERN, 29 March 2003 Hydrogen supply and safety system design: Questions For whatever approach we choose there is a general question : one common hydrogen system OR 3 independent hydrogen systems ? Common system: - only one vent tank but is very large (80 m 3 ) => too difficult to locate near absorbers - less equipment needed Advantages Disadvantages Independent systems: - less hydrogen in each system -more equipment needed => more safe scenario => more expensive - absorbers operate independently => flexibility

16 MICE Collaboration CERN, 29 March 2003 Hydrogen supply and safety system design: Next steps Decide which approach to use for hydrogen system design => Define a flow diagram and main components Work out a layout => Try to fit all components into the experimental hall Fix conceptual design in the appropriate document (e.g. MICE Note) Start engineering design

17 MICE Collaboration CERN, 29 March 2003 MICE layout Drawings for experimental hall plus ISIS control room AutoCAD drawing is finished by Tony Jones ProE 3D drawing is done

18 MICE Collaboration CERN, 29 March 2003 MICE layout: 2D Model

19 MICE layout : 3D Model MICE Collaboration CERN, 29 March 2003

20 Collect information about all sub-systems (structure, main components with their dimensions) Try to fit everything using AutoCAD drawing Continue working on the magnetic shielding using 3D model MICE Collaboration CERN, 29 March 2003 MICE layout: Next steps