AMS02 Thermal control system status report

1
AMS-02 Thermal control systemstatus report

• M. Molina CGS
• X. Zhu SDU
• I. Corradino CGS

2

• TCS Structural Test Article status report
• X. Zhu 20 min
• AMS Thermal analysis status
• I. Corradino 20 min
• TOF TV tests and model correlation
• M. Molina 20 min
• Final remarks on TCS FM Manufacturing
• TVT in LSS Friday 28th July

3
Structural Test Article (STA) for Crates and
Radiators
Presented by X. Zhu (SDU)

• CGS A. Assenza, M. Olivier
• SDU S. Zhang, J. Cheng, J. Zheng, W. Zheng

4
Contents

• Mechanical parts production (Crates)
• Status of Radiator STA
• Structure Analysis

5
Mechanical parts production

• Total 440 pieces
• Drawing OK
• Already Finished
• 376 pieces, 85
• All completed by
• End of August, 2006

6
Mechanical parts preassemble
U Crate
JT Crate
7
Mechanical parts preassemble
S Crate
UPD
8
Status of Radiator STA

• Heat pipe profiles
• Insert testing manufacturing
• Radiator panels

9
Heat pipe profiles

• Material AL Alloy 6063 T5
• Material situation purchased
• For main radiators 52 Pieces
• For tracker radiators 14 Pieces

10
HP profile for radiators
STA for Main Rad
STA for Tracker Rad
11
HP Manufacture
Die
Extrusions
HP profiles have been produced by extrusions (6
m pieces available) (no filling and no surface
treatment)
12
Inserts design and sample testing

• Aluminum alloy inserts are bonded in sandwich
  panels
• Sandwich panels are Rohacell with aluminum skins
• 15 samples (per insert type and per test type,
  tension and shear 15 x 2 x 2) are required to
  determine the allowable shear and tension force
• The 15 samples must be built with the same
  materials and processes as the FM

13
Insert manufacturing for STA and test samples

• Material AL 7075 T7351
• Material situation purchased
• 89 inserts already machined, out of
• 299 for STA
• 30 for test samples

14
Insert samples manufacture and testing

• Open issues
• SDU facilities are not suitable for large
  sandwich panels construction
• Therefore external companies need to be found for
  STA radiator and test samples manufacturing
• Specialized companies will be looked for in China
  and chosen with the support of CGS
• Target date for specialized company selection is
  end of August 2006
• Backup solution is Plyform (Italian company)

15
STA radiator panels skins

• Material (skins) AL 5052 H32
• Material supplier has been already identified
• Material will be available in 2 months after
  ordering
• Structural analysis (still ongoing at SDU) must
  provide limit loads not to be exceeded during STA
  test.

16
Radiator panels Foam

• Rohacell 51 IG

Material supplier has been already identified
from Degussa China Branch. Material will be
available in 3 weeks after ordering
17
Adhesive

• REDUX 312L the bonding between
• the face sheet and foam, insert ,
• heat pipes.
• REDUX 840 the bonding between
• foam and insert, heat pipes.
• Supplied by Hexcel China branch
• Limited shelf timewill be purchased as needed

18
New Structure Analysis (ongoing)

• Reason
• To simulate the resultant loads in the WAKE
  radiator that correspond to the actuator loads
  being applied to the USS-02 during STA static
  test. The loads have been recently selected by
  JS.
• Aim
• Ensure that the WAKE radiator is not overloaded
  during the test
• To see how closely some of the regions of the
  WAKE radiator match flight stresses or loads.

19
Structure Analysis

• The analysis is being done by J.Zheng (SDU) and
  M.Olivier (CGS).

20
Summary

• The production of STA crates will be completed by
  the end of Aug. 2006.
• STA crates will be shipped from SDU to CERN on
  1st,Sep. 2006
• STA radiator panels need be completed by the end
  of Dec. 2006, to be delivered to CERN by the end
  of Jan. 2007
• STA RADIATORS DELIVERY SCHEDULE IS CRITICAL AND
  ALTERNATIVES ARE UNDER INVESTIGATION

21
AMS-02 Thermal analysis ISS new configuration
and survey status.I.Corradino (CGS)

22
Outline

• Summary of changes on ISS thermal model
• From version 4 revision 4 (v4r4)
• to version 5 revision 3 (v5r3).
• Survey analysis status for hottest and coldests
  cases determination
• 1000 rays in Monte Carlo simulation
• Completed cases
• 15000 rays
• Completed cases
• I/F data delivered
• Future steps

23
ISS v4r4 configuration
24
ISS v5r3 configuration
25
ISS configuration changes

• The changes to ISS configuration consist of the
  removal of two main elements
• SPM (Science Power Module, i.e. the Russian
  tower)
• CAM (Centrifuge Assembly Module).

26
ISS v4r4 geometrical model
27
Detail of SPM and CAM modules
v4r4 v5r3
28
ISS update orbital cases selection

• In April 2006 when generating I/F data for TTCS
  (SYSU) a shadowing effect was found due to the
  Centrifuge Assembly Module at high Beta angles.
  CAM Is not to be in the final ISS configuration
• Therefore initial simulations
• Beta75
• Beta0 due to the zenith location of the russian
  tower
• These two cases were assumed to be as the ones
  with larger impacts after the changes.
• Later on the survey was expanded to the whole
  beta range

29
Survey analysis (1)
Model AMS-02 TMM version 4.1

• Major differences wrt previous version (ver. 3.4)
  
• New thermal models for
• BCS camera,
• TRD Gas Box,
• HVE and HVR bricks,
• CABLES,
• SUPPORT BARS
• Updated thermo-optical properties for Vacuum Case
  and USS.
• Changed MLI distribution on USS or mass saving
  purposes.

30
CAM shadow (view from sun)
31
CAM shadow (view from sun)
32
AMS TMM v4.1
33
Model updates
CABLES
TRDGB
Support bars
HVE/HVR
BCS Camera
34
Clear anodized

• USS02 changed t/o properties

MLI
Beta Cloth
Silver Teflon
Version 3.3
Version 4.0
35
Survey analysis (2)

• Complete survey of AMS-02 thermal behaviour
• The survey covers
• 7 Beta angles (-75, -60, -30, 0, 30, 60, 75)
• 37 Attitudes
• Yaw (-15, 0, 15)
• Pitch (-20, 0, 15, 25)
• Roll (-15, 0, 15)

worst cases classification for each detector
Total number of cases 259
36
Survey analysis (3)

• NOMINAL orbital parameters
• Solar flux       434.6 BTU/Hr-ft2
• Earth IR       76.4 BTU/Hr-ft2
• Albedo        0.27
• Altitude       215 nm
• End Of Life T/O properties

37
Approach

• Major concern Computational time for Geometrical
  Model simulations
• Decreasing of 1 order of magnitude in number of
  rays ? 1000 rays per surface (in place of 15000)
• Case sorting for each subsystem.
• Possible sorting errors ? accurate analysis (15K
  rays) for five worst cases (hot and cold) for
  each subsystem.

38
Survey output example (1)
Subsystem TRD
Survey 1k ray sorting (5 cases)
39
Survey output example (2)
Subsystem TRD
Coldest according to 1k ranking
Survey 15k ray accurate analysis (5 cases)
Second hottest according to 1k ranking
40
Survey output example (3)
Subsystem TRD
Survey 15k ray accurate analysis (5 cases)
41
Lesson learned

• 1k vs 15k rays sorting can be different
• 1k rays temperatures should be only used for
  ranking purposes, because of
• Environment (Nominal vs Cold/Hot)
• Simulation accuracy (1000 rays only)

42
Current status of the thermal analysis
43
I/F DATA delivered to TRD group(28th june 2006)
44
Future Steps

• 15 k Survey completion
• Generation of 5 hottest and 5 coldest plots for
  each detector
• Collection of the survey results in a document
• I/F data delivery to
• TTCS
• CAB
• other subdetectors on requests

45
TOF TV-TB test

• Prepared by C. Vettore (CGS)
• and S. Borsini (SERMS)
• Presented by M. Molina

46
Lower TOF positioning in TVC
47
Lower TOF positioning in TVC
48
PRE-TEST ACTIVITIES

• Waiting the TRR pre-tests have been done on the
  L-TOF to
• assess the time needed to reach high vacuum
  conditions with TOF
• cleaningless (outgassing?)
• venting from honeycomb ?
• virtual leakage from Poron (approx.
  30 liters in the TOF)!
• familiarize with the thermal response to T
  gradients
• (realistic evaluation of the test duration)

49
FIRST LTOF DEPRESSURIZATION
P (mbar)
Time (min)
48 hrs only to reach (nearly stable) conditions
for high vacuum (5 x 10-2 mbar)
50
4th LTOF DEPRESSURIZATION
P (mbar)
Time (min)
(Only) 22 hours needed to reach the high vacuum
conditions
51
FINAL LTOF DEPRESSURIZATION
P (mbar)
Time (min)
(Only) 14 hours needed to reach the high vacuum
conditions!
52
PRE-TEST TEMPERATURE PROFILE
External Sensors
53
Internal Sensors
The internal sensors temperature rate is lower
than the external sensors gradient
54
TOF TV-TB TEST

• TEST STATUS
• The Lower TOF flight model has been tested at
  S.E.R.M.S. in the Thermal Vacuum Chamber (TVC)
  during the period May 26th June 9th 2006.
• TEST PROFILE
• The maximum and minimum TRP temperatures are
  summarized in the following table

55
Lower TOF TEST PROFILE
56
TEST SENSORS MOUNTED ON Lower TOF

• 44 sensors have been located on the external
  structure of the L-TOF
• 1 not working. ? NCR
• 14 sensors have been located inside the Lower
  TOF. These are the Temperature Reference Points
  (TRP).
• 1 not working. ? NCR

57
Lower TOF TRPs TEMPERATURES
58
Lower TOF TVC PRESSURE
NCR
59
TEST SUCCESS CRITERIA

• Acquisition of temperatures of TOF in hot/cold
  stabilized condition (TB test) for sufficient
  number of relevant points for thermal
  mathematical model correlation purposes.
• DONE
• Definition of the Maximum/Minimum CP temperature
  with respect to the maximum/minimum PMT (TRP)
  allowed temperatures.
• DONE
• Heaters and thermostats nominal operations (in
  terms of dissipation and duty cycle)
• DONE
• Survival (minimum) temperature definition with
  heaters enabled.
• DONE
• Minimum switch-on temperature is reached using
  the heaters.
• DONE
• Internal thermal design is performing according
  to the specification, i.e. the internal heat
  dissipating sources are well sunk to the TOF
  body, hence showing small delta-T.
• DONE

60
REPORTED NCR (1/2)

• 2 NOT WORKING SENSORS
• Internal sensor (14) does not monitor a trp and
  the sfec board temperature is correctly measured
  by other 3 sensor
• External sensor (6) is a redundant one. after
  having verified the correct functioning of the
  main sensor, no corrective actions have been
  taken
• THE MEASURED POWER CONSUMPTION FOR THE SFEC BOARD
  HAS BEEN LARGER THAN PREDICTED (NAMELY 320 mW
  instead of 130 mW) HAS NOT BEEN CONFIRMED DURING
  THE TEST
• SFEC power consumption does not affect TRP
  behaviour and it has no impact on the test
  objectives

61
REPORTED NCR (2/2)

• ACCIDENTALTEST INTERRUPTION, with pressure raise.
• Facility emergency procedure. the vacuum
  specified condition has not been respected for
  less than 25 minutes.
• 2 HOUR INTERRUPTION OF DATA ACQUISITION during
  the beginning of the first descent phase (from
  HOT operative to COLD non-operative)
• Chamber temperature brought up to the value of
  the hot stabilization. problem was solved.

62
MODEL CORRELATION (1/5)
MODEL VALIDATION SUCCESS CRITERIA The adopted
correlation criteria are as follows Temperature
level criteria The average of all the temperature
deviations (measured value minus predicted value)
has to be less than /- 2C Where N is the
number of temperature measurements
points. Standard deviation criteria The standard
deviation of the temperature differences between
measured and predicted data has to be lower than
3C, namely
63
MODEL CORRELATION (5/5)

• The following parameters had to be tuned to
  correlate the model
• CONTACT CONDUCTANCES
• PMT BRACKET TO TOF CARBON FIBER BOX
• X 10
• PMT BRACKET TO HONEYCOMB SUPPORT
• X 5
• SFEC BOARD THERMAL CONDUCTANCES TO CARBON FIBER
  BOX
• / 30
• COMPOSITE MATERIAL CONDUCTANCES
• HONEYCOMB SUPPORT CONDUCTANCE (IN PLANE)
• X 5

64
MODEL CORRELATION (2/5)
Criteria ?TAV lt 2C STD_DEV lt 3C
65
MODEL CORRELATION (3/5)
TRPs temperatures before and after correlation
66
MODEL CORRELATION (4/5)
Control Points temperatures before and after
correlation (control points sensors are
positioned on the external structure of the Lower
TOF)
67
MODEL CORRELATION (5/5)

• The following parameters had to be tuned to
  correlate the model
• PMTS BRACKET TO BOX CONTACT CONDUCTANCE IN BOX
  X/-X
• Initial value 0.006 W/K ? final value 0.09
  W/K.
• PMTS BRACKET TO HONEYCOMB SUPPORT CONDUCTANCE
  IN BOX Y/-Y
• Initial value 6.23E-03 W/K ? final value
  3.1E-02 W/K.
• CONDUCTANCE WITHIN PMTS HONEYCOMB SUPPORT IN
  BOX Y/-Y
• Initial value 1.08E-02 W/K ? final value
  5.4E-02 W/K.
• PMTS SUPPORT TO BOX CONDUCTANCE IN BOX Y/-Y
• Initial value 2.49E-02 W/K ? final value
  4.98E-02 W/K.
• SFEC THERMAL CONDUCTANCES from board to carbon
  fiber box
• Initial value 1 W/K ? final value 0.035 W/K.

68
Coming Thermal tests

• E-crate retest Aug 2006 INFN PI
• ECAL QM Sept 2006 CGS
• CDD TVT Oct 2006 JS
• TTCS EM end of 2006 SYSU/NLR
• RHV TVT End 2006 CIEMAT
• UPS TVT Early 2007 NSPO
• Ucr.and UPD Early 2007 SERMS
• ACC TVT Early 2007 RWTH, Aachen
• TRD GB (QM) Late 2006 RWTH, Aachen

69
TCS FM HARDWARE MANUFACTURING

• Top level identified products are the following
• Main and tracker radiators
• MLI
• Cryocooler TCS
• CAB TCS
• Responsibilities for TCS FM hardware
  manufacturing are being discussed