Campuses:
This survey New Survey was sent to Steve Marks for addition to the data spreadsheet filled out by all experiments. Steve is revising the docs and re-organizing the spreadsheets for ISE anyway, and will add boxes to give more detail on screening needs for experiments. He will continue to iterate with us.
In response to the conversations last week, CNA has considered the changes necessary to significantly reduce the length of the FAARM. Here are some of the issues we have identified and would like some feedback about:
1. Spacing requirements around shield - is 2.7m needed?
We don't think we need that much. Issues: egress vs scaffolding - but now that the height is less, can we egress over top? Can we egress on only one side? Instrumentation: need space for phototubes if we have an active shield. Consider added physics value of Gd-loading for neutron detection - this will only be possible for a water shield. Still 2.7 seems large. Pipes, inlets: Still don't need 2.7 meters
2. Reconsider labyrinth opening. Does the design criteria allow for a door?
Generally agreed that once height is less, door is easier. We still need access to push door out on rails as far as labyrinth clearance. However, we save on shadow height and extra shadow to side and corner. Door can be plug, rather than full height.
3. Increase radius of roof arch by 3x to make the roof arch flatter and to provide for greater head room
Probably not an option according to Steve Marks. Discussed cost benefit of replacing one tall standard module with two lower ones, but it seems that the module shape/size is a cost optimization. Plus, most of the other experiments DO need the height, so we don't have a bunch of experiments that want to go together into a lower ceiling module. Gotta live with it.
4. Machine shop space requirements - is 17m needed?
Decided to go with a scaled down clean machine shop. A few drill press, jigsaw, lathe, etc. Maybe a welder still. Most complicated assembly done on surface, cleaned and brought down. This machine shop is to assemble parts directly at the FAARM, including repair of screeners, and making stands, etc. There is supposed to be some common space OUTSIDE the clean area too for non-clean assembly. Assume the building of the shield, etc. is done before creating a clean space. A clean detector fab or crystal growth and storage of underground materials, etc. can be done near the electroforming area or some other location. We need to be aware of these needs, but not necessarily include them in our module.
5. Possibly move machine shop to 2nd floor, keep on 1st floor if at all possible
Smaller machine shop can go to 2nd floor, but still prefer on 1st floor due to vibrations and easy access to shielded area.
6. Storage, toilets, and chem lab, move to 2nd floor
Sounds fine to us. Need plumbing, ventilation, etc - how does this impact the mechanicals space?
7. Reduce length of space to 30m
seems good
8. Reduce size of transition space, rearrange, maybe only one locker/shower?
Keep 2 showers and lockers since we don't want a huge bottleneck when we have installations and groups of people, but can shrink clean locker area. Can't understand having cart access on the inside. Might not make sense to squeeze space here for minimal gain. Might end up sharing shower/entry with experiment in front of us, but we still have to include this before integration of experiments to indicate its existance.
9. 2nd floor begins 7.5ft (2.25m) above veto shield (maybe leave 2nd floor open above veto shield for access purposes)
Need to include a cleaner installation room above the immersion tank location above the shield. So above that anyway the 2nd floor needs to be open there. This part needs to be in the drawings as a second cylinder above the first. Possibly it is a flexible clean room, more like a tent.
10. 3rd floor height = 2nd floor height
(possibly Bob could revise wiki after discussion with Lee)
Lee and Bob need to talk this over and present next week. Please just change the wiki, and point us to that, rather than emailing doc files.