AMS02 Thermal Control System Status report CERN, 30th October 2003

1
AMS-02 Thermal Control SystemStatus
reportCERN, 30th October 2003

• J. Burger - MIT
• M. Molina - CGS
• S. Chen - NSPO

2
Thermal related presentations

• TODAY
• TCS mass reduction (M. Molina)
• RE crates rad.removal therm.assessment (M.
  Molina)
• Updated thermal model (M. Molina)
• Thermal CDR announcement (M. Molina)
• NSPO TV/TB tests (S. Chen)
• TOMORROW (31st October 2003)
• TTCS status report (J. Van Es)
• TV/TB test at ESTEC(J. Burger)

3
AMS 02 RADIATORS MASS REDUCTION
4
Bremen
Overall 18 people involved across Europe
Geneva
Milano
5
Purpose of the teams work

• CGS
• overall optimization, brackets new design
• OHB
• redesign with carbon fiber structures perspective
• CERN
• innovative ideas and cross-checks

6
Actions agreed at TIM, 01/08/2003

• CRATES
• 1) structural optimization (neglecting thermal)
• Customized design
• 2) Specific design (RAM/WAKE)
• RADIATOR
• 3) Attachment points for the brackets
• Number
• Interface area
• 4) doublers
• TOP BRACKETS
• 5) Shear plate
• MID BRACKETS
• 6) Reduce length
• 7) Outside the radiator
• 8) TTCS box combination
• MISCELLANEA
• 9) Modelling techniques
• 10) Remove some brackets
• 11) Titanium Bracket

7
Schedule of the RoadMap
NOW
Geneva, 22/09/2003
Overall AMS Mass optimization meeting 28/11/2003
Overall AMS Mass optimization meeting 3/10/2003
8

• The next slides are a summary of more than 350
  slides -available on the WEB
• http//ams.cern.ch/AMS/Thermal
• presented at the Geneva Working group meeting,
  22nd September.

9
Thermal control structure mass budget (August
2003)
10
Vocabulary
Upper bracket
Mid bracket
Lower bracket, also called lower rod
11
Priorities Table
12
Load cases philosophy
13

• Upper bracket

14
STARTING POINT version 0 NON OPTIMIZED MASS
8.3kg
15
Upper Bracket Optimized ver. 1
MASS 3.195 kg
16
Upper bracket optimization sequence
20 optimization steps
17
Upper Bracket 1 conclusions

• Satisfactory results, BUT
• High forces on USS
• High stresses on crates
• Non homogeneous spread of loads on the crates
• Other options needed!

18
Titanium optionUpper bracket (ver.
2)(following suggestions from CSIST)
UPPER BRACKET
19
COMPARISON DATAat similar weight

• Aluminium ver 1
• Mass 3.195 Kg
• Max stress 222 N/mm2
• MoSu 0.01
• freq 32.2 Hz

• Titanium ver 2
• Mass 3.10 Kg
• Max stress 352 N/mm2
• MoSu 0.35
• freq 31.1 Hz

20
Titanium optionUpper bracket ver. 3
UPPER BRACKET
21
Thickness optimization Titanium bracket, ver. 3
MASS 0.96 Kg
In the figure all wall thicknesses are shown.
2 mm
2 mm
1 mm
2 mm
1.5 mm
11 mm
11 mm
22
Normal modes comparison
Aluminium bracket - ver 1 1st freq 32.2 Hz
Titanium bracket ver 3 1st freq 24.1 Hz
23
COMPARISON DATA

• Aluminium solutionver. 1
• Mass 3.195 Kg
• Max stress 222 N/mm2
• MoS 0.01
• freq 32.2 Hz
• Minimum thickness 3mm

• Titanium solution ver. 3
• Mass 0.96 Kg
• Max stress 445 N/mm2
• MoS 0.07
• freq 24.1 Hz
• Minimum thickness 1mm

24
Comments

• Titanium brackets, when optimized, are very light
  but ribs 1 mm thick can show local buckling
  instability problems, with a very soft mount (
  lower frequency)
• In conclusion, titanium option will be no more
  considered

25
UPPER BRACKET SPLITTED IN TWO PARTS(ver. 4)
26
UPPER BRACKET Ver. 4
Starting point 1.6 Kg, very attractive

27
UPPER BRACKET ver 4 comments

• Bracket A stiffness makes higher stresses in the
  junction bracket-to-crate
• Finally, bolts are loaded with higher forces
• CONCLUSION It is not effective to split the
  upper bracket in two parts.

28
Dumbbell upper bracketver. 5
29
DUMBBELL TOP BRACKET ver 5
T-CRATE
BRACKET
USS
30
CONCLUSIONS

• The dumbbell Bracket
• Mass 2.67 Kg
• Advantages
• - relatively flexible mount
• crates lower bolt row used without stiffening the
  connection to the USS
• The DUMBBELL is the final choice

31
Starting point ver. 0

• Mass 1.7 6.7 Kg

32
Mid bracket ver. 1

• Removal of the Mid Z Bracket

-1.7 kg per bracket
33
Mid bracket 1

• MID Z BRACKET REMOVED

First frequency 33.5 Hz
34
OPTION 2 - MID BRACKET STATUS
35
Mid bracket ver. 2

Optimization of mid brackets thickness
Bracket mass 4.3 kg each (cumulative saving
4.1 kg each)
36
Mid bracket ver 2 results

• Mid bracket lighter structure gives a lower
  frequency 29.6 Hz
• Accommodation issues a gap is needed between the
  columns at the same Z
• Asymmetry RAM/WAKE radiator

37
Mid Bracket ver. 3 for RAM
38
RAM radiator squared crates layout (no more
gemini)
39
Introduction

• A different layout than the standard GEMINI for
  the RAM radiator has been considered, moving
  columns of XPD outwards
• On WAKE the Gemini configuration is the only
  possible, due to CAB and TRDGB
• Foreseen advantages
• Reduced lenght of the mid brackets less weight
• Structure (column) closer to the constraints
  (USS)
• Framed RAM radiator, with the frame constrained
  to the USS, is stiffer

40
Comparison between the new accommodation of RAM
radiator and the accommodation 23/05/2003
accommodation 23/05/2003
New accommodation
41
New accommodation - FE model modifications
42
RAM radiator MID BRACKET
Bolted connection between part 1 - part 2
Mid Bracket - part 1 Mass 0.682 kg
Mid Bracket - part 2 Mass 1.612
Mass 2.3 Kg
43
MID BRACKET MECHANICAL DESIGN
TPD
USS
Mid Bracket
CCEB
44
Results summary

• Stresses (calculated with 128 load cases) are
  too high in
• crates
• XPD
• top bracket
• mid brackets
• intercrate links
• Forces are too high in
• panel inserts

45
Frequency

35.4 Hz
46
XPD STRESSES
Worst LC over 128
47
Lession learned framed RAM radiator

• Mass reduction is low due to the small relative
  mass of the mid brackets compared to the whole
  system
• Connecting the XPD near the USS
• bracket compliance is reduced
• The bracket design could be made more compliant
  BUT this is critical due to lower envelope
  available
• high loads are transferred to radiator
• Interface stiffness changes, new criticalities
  during next CLA cycle could arise.
• It is mandatory to update boundary conditions
  with CLA, because fixation point of USS used by
  LMSO until now is no longer representative

48
CONCLUSIONS

• The framed structure is abandoned for RAM
  radiator.
• It is better to go back to the Gemini layout, to
  transfer in a more effective way the imposed
  displacements/rotations

49
Mid bracket ver. 4 bar
50
Mid Bracket Design ver. 4 (the bar)

• Alternate mid bracket design
• A tube integrated between the USS bars with
  sperical bearing at both ends
• Two clamps attachted to the crates forming
  the interface to the tube
• Additionally one of the upper brackets is
  released in x-direction
• The alternate design has
• 1 x 6, 1 x 5 DOF at upper bracket I/F- 1 x 3, 1
  x 2 DOF at mid bracket I/F
• 2 x 1 DOF at lower bracket I/F

51
Mid Bracket Design
Mid Bracket Mass Estimate Version 2 mtotal ?
8.6 kg Alternate Design Aluminum mtube ?
6 kg mbrackets ? 5 kg mtotal ? 11
kg Mass increase ? 2.4 kg
Alternate Design CFRP mtube ? 4
kg mbrackets ? 3 kg mtotal ? 7
kg Mass saving ? 0.4 kg
52
Mid bracket ver. 4 (the bar) Summary

• Mass has slightly increased
• MoS have increased, expecially on the inserts
• Some accommodation issues (magnet stay-out zone)
• Some fixation issues on XPDs

53
Mid bracket ver. 5 Outer bar
54
Mid bracket ver. 5

• Avoids problems of interference
• Avoids difficult fixation on XPDs
• Concerns
• thermal impact on radiators
• fixation through radiator panel.

55
Mid brackets ver. 6 external bracketsby Wang
Yi and Robert Becker
56
Mid bracket ver .6
57
Mid bracket ver. 6 results

• Positive margins
• Low frequency due to higher attachment points
• Attempt to raise frequency failed
• Minor thermal concern (radiator shading)
• Inserts to be checked in detail

58
Mid bracket ver. 7 wake-like bracket
59
Lower brackets
60
Starting point ver. 0

• Mass 7.5 kg

61
Lower Bracket Version 1

• Implementation of Lower Brackets as per design
  proposed by Wang Yi and Robert Becker a lower
  plate replaces the rods
• It gives stiffer mount on the bottom
• needed when you make weaker the constraints on
  the top
• After this implementation, ALL 128 LOAD CASES
  were run, to isolate the new most critical ones
• Results are referred to this extended set of cases

62
Lower bracket Ver. 1

Bracket mass 2.4 kg
63
Lower bracket ver.1

First frequency 33.9 Hz
64
Lower bracket ver. 1 stress analysis
65
Lower Bracket ver. 2
66
Lower bracket ver. 3
Maximum Stress 285 MPa
67
Analysis result on ver. 2 and 3

• The stress location is simply moving around by
  changing the shape, but never removed
• The mounting to the USS-02 is too stiff
• Stresses are too high because of imposed
  displacements

68
Lower bracket Ver. 4By R. Becker and Wang Yi
69
Low bracket ver. 4

• Different mounting on USS02

Mass 2.75 Kg
70
Lower bracket 4 results

• 1) The Lower Bracket weight is almost the same as
  the rod design
• 2) The first natural frequency is slightly
  greater than 50Hz (53.65Hz)
• 3) The Margin of safety is positive for all
  the 128 Load Cases.

71
Lower Bracket ROD optimization Ver. 5
72
CAD DESIGN LOWER BRACKET
T-CRATE
To USS
Mass 2.4 kg total
To Radiator
73
Lower rod ver. 5

• Lower frequency
• Better distribution of loads
• Better capability to withstand imposed
  displacements
• Lower loads exchanged with the USS

74
Conclusion on lower bracket

• The optimized version of the pinned lower rod
  (ver.5) is the best choice in terms of stresses
  and mass
• Frequency gets lower

75
Dozens of options were analized

• 5 top brackets versions
• 7 mid brackets versions
• 5 lower brackets versions

76

• The final layout, COMMON for RAM WAKE
  RADIATORS, is

77
WAKE
78
RAM
79
FEM model delivered to LMSO
80
(No Transcript)
81
(No Transcript)
82
(No Transcript)
83
(No Transcript)
84
(No Transcript)
85
IMPORTANT REMARK TO LMSOUSS BOLT LOADS
86
Other mass savings in TCS budget
87
MLI ON MAIN RADIATORS

• FROM
• Radiator and crates totally covered
• TO
• Radiator and crates MLI tailoring

7.9 kg
4.1 kg
88
SUMMARY on MAIN RADIATORS

• WAS
• RAM 85.6 kg
• WAKE 84.7 kg

• IS
• RAM 61.4 kg
• WAKE 56.1 kg

• Including
• 12 brackets
• MLI
• Sandwich panel with inserts and heat pipes

-53 kg
89
OTHER TCS ELEMENTSTOFECALRICHTRACKER
radiatorZENITH radiator
90
Thermal control structure mass budget (3rd
October 2003)
91
ADDITIONAL MASS SAVING PROPOSALREMOVAL OF RICH
ECAL CRATES RADIATORS
92

• Reduction of electronics boards (USCM )gt empty
  slots on main radiators
• Rich number of boards decreased
• IDEA to get rid of the Rich and Ecal crates
  radiators putting RE electronics
• on USS beams (HV bricks crates)
• On main radiators (EPD, RPD)
• gt SAVE 20 kg of radiators

93
RICH Thermal budget
Baseline
Proposed by RICH group 3/10/2003
7 W 14 W
25 W
4 W 4 W
18 W
29 W on the detector
HV bricks
37 W on the detector
94
EFFECTS OF POWER NEW ALLOCATION

• RICH (octagonal) radiators has to be redesigned
  trade-off study
• New (smaller) RICH crates can be relocated

95
RICH
With Radiators
Without Radiators
Complete height radiator
Half height radiator
Thermal analysis Trade-off studies results
4mm thick
6mm thick
MLI
No MLI
96
(No Transcript)
97
CDR design
98
Proposed
99
(No Transcript)
100
(No Transcript)
101
(No Transcript)
102
(No Transcript)
103
Thermal control structure mass budget (October
2003 - 2)
104
Additional mass saving carbon fiber zenith
radiator
105
Mass Reduction Zenith Radiator
- Current design with aluminum face sheets -
Alternative design with CFRP face sheets could
safe a mass of 10 kg Detailed Analyses
(thermal and structural) are required
106
Current zenith radiator design
Zenith radiator
MLI
107
Proposed zenith radiator design mechanical
structure mounted on TRD upper h/c panel
Aluminum skin 5 Kg mass saving
Thermal (for the TRD) ? Thermo-elastic? Analy
sis ongoing at OHB
108
Carbon fiber skin 15 Kg mass saving
Technology ? Cost ?
109
Thermal control structure mass budget (October
2003 - 3)
110
BOXES on LOWER USS02

• Thermal environment preliminary study

111
(No Transcript)
112
Model features

• No conduction to USS considered
• All box surfaces with WHITE PAINT t/o
  properties
• EOL properties considered only

113
(No Transcript)
114
Orbit selection

• 3 orbits chosen
• Beta 75
• Beta 0
• Beta 75
• Model AMS ver 1.1, with NO RICH ECAL CRATES
  radiators

115
Final remarks

• Each brick can reject up to 8 W
• Each crate can reject up to 10 W
• from their own walls when mounted on the USS
  lower beams
• We will evaluate the best location for MLI on the
  walls most exposed to the sun

116
Example of MLI layout
MLI
117

• MASS SAVING
• NOT IN THERMAL CONTROL SYSTEM BUDGET

118
Crates Walls Optimization

• Structural

119
Crate main walls

• Standard design for all the crates

120
Structural analysis results

• Wall thickness can be decreased down to 2.0 mm
  without affecting structural behaviour

• CRATES walls thickness optimized
• POTENTIAL MASS SAVING 16 Kg

Must be cross checked with thermal
121
Crates Walls Optimization

• Thermal

122
Important remarks

• 10 Kg can be saved by allowing in some cases to
  have 5-10 C higher board temp
• TV Qualification test of
• T-crate
• S-crate
• M-crate
• will confirm the electronics works at this
  temperature

123
On-orbit temperatures (thermal simulation results)
124
A QUESTION

• How far can we push the current temperature
  limits on card edges?
• Nominal (now 55C at board level)
• Acceptance (now 60C at board level)
• IF ALL THE OLD CRATES ARE QUALIFIED AT 55C, it
  will be OK with the new, light, crates (board
  might experience edge temperatures up to 70C)

125
Thin/thick walls

• Current design is based on 3.5 mm walls
• In the proposed design all the walls are 2 mm,
  BUT some slots in
• J-crate
• JPD-crate
• S-crate
• M-crate
• that will be 7 mm.

126
Thermal modelling

• Updating to AMS ver. 2.0
• DEBUGGING and CHECKING

127
Thermal model comparison
128
(No Transcript)
129
(No Transcript)
130
(No Transcript)
131
(No Transcript)
132
(No Transcript)
133
(No Transcript)
134
THERMAL CDR
135
Thermal CDR AttendeesNot in order of importance

• LMSO C. Clark, R. Harold, B. Sommer, T.Martin
• GSFC 2PHASE expert, S. Breon
• SCL S. Harrison
• TTCS NLR, NIKHEF, GVA
• RICH-ECAL-TOF CGS
• TRD OHB-system / Aachen
• TRD GAS BOX LMSO
• CAB Crisa
• UPS LMSO
• Electronics M. Capell
• NSPO

• ACC LMSO
• Star Tracker INFN RM
• PDS CGS
• J. Burger, H. Hofer
• 3 from OHB
• Bricks G. Castellini
• CVB J. Ulbricht
• 8 from CGS

136
Thermal CDR workflow
137
Documents will be requested to subdetectors

• Thermal Analysis Report
• Structural analysis report
• DML
• Assy dwg
• Parts list
• Specifications
• HW verification plan
• HW procurement specifications
• TMM
• GMM
• Test results
• Verification matrix (vs. Thermal ICD)

138
WORKING TOGETHER WITH NSPO
139
Milan, 4/08/2003AGENDA for NSPO visit

• CGS facilities visit
• J, JPD, JT crate model description
• Thermocouple locations agreement for the TV/TB
  test
• Possible future collaboration between NSPO and CGS

140
(No Transcript)
141
(No Transcript)
142
Suggestions for the next test campaign

• More thermocouples on the thermal path between
  node 4 (104) and 9 (109) of each slot, possibly
  up to 5 along the same vertical slot.
• To put thermocouples very close to the position
  of the nodes in the mathematical model

143
-J crate-Test configuration
The last column indicates the need of up to 1/5
thermocouples along the same vertical slot 5
thermocouples are requested for the main wall
with thru-pockets for harness, in the location of
the nodes 4-8-9-10 and on the top of the main
wall itself. 2 t/c are meant to be located where
node 4 and 9 are. 1 t/c is located on node 4. Not
shown in the table there are the 2 side panels t/c
144
(No Transcript)