1. ATLAS EXPERIMENT INTEGRATION TASK: SPACE MANAGEMENT Tatiana Klioutchnikova 05/06/2014 1

2. Beginning of ATLAS integration task Year 1995: creation of Atlas Integration Team ( team leader and 3-4 designers) First tasks of the team: -Work on global layout -Definition of envelopes and interfaces -Routing of services -Access structures Year 1998: creation of TDR “Technical Co-ordination” that described Naming conventions, Organizational matters, Mechanical integration, Services integration, Installation and many other related matters. 2

3. Use of CAD systems for the mechanical integration 1995 – 2006 - EUCLID CAD system used as basic at CERN for design and integration of LHC detectors (EUCLID CAD system was inherited from LEP period and became out of date quickly after beginning of ATLAS integration. It did not have enough functionalities for the integration of big and complex systems like ATLAS) 2000 – search for future CAD system for mechanical design at CERN started. EUCLID authors announced the end of further development and gradual stop of support 2003 – Catia V5 CAD system was recommended to become a basic CAD system at CERN 2004 – ATLAS model transfer to Catia V5 started by a team from Georgia, Tbilisi university End 2004 – First checks for conflicts have shown that Catia V5 is more fast and efficient compare to Euclid system ( use of DMU Space Analysis ) 2005 – Complete check for conflicts and clearances procedure was adopted for all designed equipment 2007-2008 massive conversion of 3D models to Catia V5 format. Very painful process that caused some degradation of data Since 2008 use of Catia V5 and SmarTeam for database management 3

4. 28 000 models and drawings in total created and stored in 84 Euclid databases organized by sub-projects ( models mean assemblies, not small parts) 106 designers have been registered in ATLAS EUCLID databases from 1995 to 2007. Time constrains and low speed of conversion did not allow to make a total conversion. So models for the translation to Catia have been selected and tagged manually by few designers. CAD data for Atlas (June 2007) Integration (layouts, services, studies of installation, envelopes..) 5000 Inner Detector 3700 Magnets 1200 Calorimeter LAr 700 Calorimeter Tile 1100 Muon system 3300 Beam pipe 1200 Structures (access and support, SW, BW, shieldings…) 5900 Infrastructure (ventilation, cooling, gas..) 4200 4

5. 1.Layout definition 2.Envelope space attribution for each sub-system 3.Every sub-system is using only attributed space for their design 4.Each request of additional space is discussed with TC 5.TC organize resolution of conflicts with neighbouring sub-systems 6.Modification of all concerned envelopes. This is a process of iterations, the envelopes are in constant evolution during their lifetime. 7.Engineering change notice if several sub-systems involved 8.Fabrication of detector parts: survey and check dimensions compare to envelope 9.Integration and Installation of detector parts: survey and check dimensions compare to envelope 10.Simultaneous study of services routing and estimation of space for services between envelopes 11.access and support structures design 12.Accessibility checks 13.Installation studies 14.Scenarios of detector opening and closing for maintenance and upgrade: check for conflicts Space management 5

6. Layout of detectors for ATLAS – one of basic documents for the integration 6

7. Barrel Toroid magnet and Feet Rail system – main support structure for other detector parts. 7

8. 2. Envelopes Definition The individual envelope of a system corresponds to the maximum space (volume) allocated to a system itself in its own local axis system. Individual Envelope definition: Nominal dimensions + manufacturing/assembly tolerances + maximum deformation under normal and faulty loading cases. The global envelope corresponds to the volume occupied by a system after its positioning and adjustment inside the detector. Global Envelope definition: Individual envelope + Global assembly tolerance (when applicable) + positioning and adjustment tolerances. 8

9. Individual envelope definition for one of Barrel Toroid coils 9

10. Global envelope for the assembled Barrel Toroid 10

11. Example of the simplified envelope model at the beginning of integration, detailed model and real assembly in the cavern of the services tower for the End-Cap Toroidal Magnet of ATLAS experiment. 11

12. Detailed Description The change proposed is to increase the Toroid Barrel Inner radius by 25 mm (50 mm on diameter) in order to gain space between Muon BIS chambers and the Barrel and End Cap Calorimetry. The vacuum vessels nominal positions are provided in CEA drawing “ ATLAS Barrel toroid Assembly – Front View” 9B 2900 - DM 0000 001(see Annex A). The vacuum vessel inner radius is 4720 mm nominal dimension, will increase to 4745 mm The vacuum vessel outer radius is 10040 mm nominal dimension, increase to 10065 mm 12

13. Barrel Toroid installed in the cavern 13

14. Interpretation of survey results: Deviations from theoretical coordinates Y X BT04 BT12 BT10 BT08 BT14 BT16 BT02 BT06 7.7; 3.1 11.6; 0.3 8.2; 2.4 9.2; -19.7 5.3; -2.5 12.4; 9.1 6; -1 4.8; -1.3 11.5; 6.3 5.2; -0.2 12.3; -5 3.9; -10.3 2.3 0.5 0.4 2.1 6.1 8.6 5.4 4.9 2.3 15.9 14.1 16.3 15.3 3 1.5 2.6 21.2; 11.9 4.6; -3.9 17.5; 10.5 2.1; -2.8 15.4; 6 5.4; 1 20.9; 11.5 18.3; 9.3 17.8; 7.5 23.3; 14.2 14.1; 1.7 11.8; -4.2 7.9 14.1 13.6 8.5 1.1 2.8 6.53.4 20.9; 17.5 17.6; 10.7 18.7; 15.3 16.8; 10.2 15.5; 10.9 11.6; 6 13.8; 9.5 18.7; 8.3 6.4; 0 0.3; -5.6 9.2; 0.9 10; 3.1 8.8 7.8 11 11.1 9.7 5.4 6.2 6.8 19.5; 13.2 12.1; 2.8 16.6; 11.2 15.6; 3.5 12.5; -15 79.1; 2.6 18.4; 2.9 10.7; 9.4 9.4; -26.9 4.4; -2.8 18.6; 3.9 18.1; 9.5 4 8.2 5.5 5.9 4.6 3 3.6 5.5 13.8; -1.6 5.9; -3.1 5.5; 1.1 11.1; -6.2 6.2; -0.4 3.2; 1.4 12.5; 2.6 1.1; -9.1 13.2; 5.9 6.8; 1 6.9; 6.3 5; -0.1 0.8 0.3 2.5 3.4 5.8 2.9 4.5 4.7 14.5; 10.7 3.6; 1.7 8.5; -34.9 19; 2.1 8.1; 0.3 6.3; 2.7 9.7; 7.9 10.5; 1.7 28.2; 15.6 8.5; 4.3 14.1; 5.2 0.4; -0.2 7.3 3.9 5.3 2.7 7.5 1.9 8 5.2 6; 1.8 2; -5.2 22.1; 10.5 9.8; 1.8 7.8; -2.1 1.4; -8.8 13.4; 1.7 5.3; -13.9 2.4 17.2 5.2; -10.5 9.6; -12 8.7 7.3 13.2 9.9 0.5 0.8 1.2 1.7 7.7; -9.7 17; -2 19.8; 3 0.2; -5.8 2.6; -10.7 13.9; 1 17; -3 1.1; -1.1 13.4; 0.1 4; -3.5 10.3; 1.1 16.8; 1.4 Note: For envelope points (maximum deviation; minimum deviation) 14

15. Example of checking for conflicts using 3D models : more than 700 corridors for muon alignment system cross the detectors, structures and services to define precise positioning of almost 2000 muon chambers in ATLAS. 15

16. 14 16 2 4 6 8 10 12 US USA 16

17. Sector 12 Ring 2 Ring 1 Z=0 17

18. All Sectors – ring 2 – Side A and C 1 Bolt concerned 18

19. Year 2003 - beginning of the installation in the cavern. Design office becomes bigger. 15-17 designers working on different systems in parallel. Very difficult to check all models for conflict. Solution has been found with help of Georgian team that worked at distance checking all new created and modified models with the whole detector model. They used Catia DMU module for these checks. We received every day hundreds pages of reports that we had to check. 19

20. Example of a clash report generated by Catia Every new designed model now has to pass through the Catia check before being accepted. After the check the designers get the reports of clashes and clearances and modify the models if necessary. 20

21. 21 SCAN is very helpful to make corrections of the models and to create as- installed versions. Use of SCAN

22. Check of End-Cap Toroid installation using dynamic simulation with 3D models Real End-Cap Toroid installation in ATLAS cavern. 22

23. Standard opening access configuration 23

24. 1.Using of CAD system for the big and longterm project: be prepared for the change of the system from the beginning. It means very good organization of models in database. 2.Product lifecycle management is very important. Models should have correct status: released, obsolete, in work, envelope, nominal, as-built, simplified, etc. It will help during life time of the project and for the migration to a new system. 3.It is recommended to provide automatically in the database some neutral formats like pdf for drawings and step for 3D 4.In complex systems check for conflict is recommended after every modification. A process should be established for all designers, especially during massive design process in a big team. 5.A lot of attention to the interfaces between envelopes 6.All displacements should be taken into account during checks after modifications 7.Scan is a powerful tool to create “as-built” models 8.… 9.Not possible to mention all important issues in one presentation Outcome of our experience 24