1 / 13

Container-based Shield

Container-based Shield. Kam-Biu Luk April 9, 2006. Motivation. Disadvantages of shields based on the water-pool design: Having antineutrino detectors submersed in water leads to many design and operational issues: Difficult to deploy modules into and out of water

jbecton
Download Presentation

Container-based Shield

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Container-based Shield Kam-Biu Luk April 9, 2006

  2. Motivation • Disadvantages of shields based on the water-pool design: • Having antineutrino detectors submersed in water leads to many design and operational issues: • Difficult to deploy modules into and out of water • Cannot access the antineutrino detectors easily • Requires complicated systems for deploying calibration sources • Difficult to handle electrical connection to the photomultiplier tubes • Some of the muon tracking detectors are in water, requiring the detectors to be water-proof and difficult to maintain • The shield and the muon tracker are not movable: • Lead to objection or reluctance to utilize the mid site because of cost to instrument the shield and muon system; hence, flexibility of Daya Bay is compromised.

  3. Container-based Shield • Containers are readily available and cheap • They are modular, easy to move and stack when they are empty (no need to install 100-t crane in the experimental hall) • They are designed with a conservative safety factor, good for us too • They can be filled with • Water • Probably need water-proof lining inside the container (commercially available) • Could still design it as water Cherenkov veto if we wish • Can be filled and discharged easily • Cheap • Wax • Less heavy than water • Cannot be filled and discharged at will • Probably more expensive than water • May have to worry about fire danger • May be good for sealing cracks between containers

  4. Some Useful Information about Containers Tare mass tonnes 1.8-2.4 2.8-4.0 3.9-4.2 • Standard containers for intercontinental use: • There are 10’- and 30’-long containers as well

  5. Side View of Near Hall Electronics hut Number indicates the length of the container 40’ 40’ 40’ 40’ 40’ 40’ 40’ 30’ 30’ tunnel 40’ 30’ 40’ 30’ 40’ 40’ 40’ 40’ 40’ 40’ 40’ 40’

  6. Front View of Near Hall Can be a 30’ container instead 40’ 40’ 30’ 30’ 30’ 30’ 30’ 30’ 30’ 30’ 30’ 30’ 30’ 30’ 40’ 40’

  7. Bottom of Near Hall 40’ 40’ 40’ 40’ 40’ 40’ 40’ 40’ 40’ 40’ 40’ 40’ 40’ 40’ 40’ 40’

  8. Number of Containers For Near Hall This applies to the Mid Hall as well

  9. Front View of Far Hall Symmetric about the center line Only the left half is shown 40’ 30’ 30’ 30’ 30’ 30’ 30’ 30’ 30’ 30’ 30’ 30’ 30’ 30’ 40’ 30’ 30’ Adopting Edwards’ garage scheme

  10. Number of Containers For Far Hall

  11. Summary • The number of containers required to instrument two near halls and one far hall is: • 30’ container = 89 • 40’ container = 92 • Taking into account of extra space for maneuvering the flatbed into the shield, the length of the hall is long than the width of eight containers. The estimated dimensions of the halls are: * This is from the bottom of the pit to the roof

  12. Summary (cont) • Based on containers, we can dismantle the shield by first draining out the water in the containers. They are light enough that a small crane can handle them. Moving the containers from one hall to the other is relatively trivial. • The proposed shield will allow us to deploy the antineutrino detectors on flatbeds very easily: just use a tractor to push or pull. (The flatbed can be guided in place, for example, with a single rail in the staging area inside the hall.) • This shield will also greatly simplify the design of the muon tracker (the detectors will be mounted on the outside of the containers) and the calibration systems. As a result, all the subsystems including the PMT’s if mounted on the outside of the steel tank can be serviced. Since the muon tracker is likely modular, it can be disassembled and assembled with ease. Hence, we can utilize the mid hall to carry out our experiment quickly and then move the shield along with the muon system to the far hall in a relative short time.

  13. Cost of the Container-based shield • According to www.iport.com/sales_pricing.html: • 20' and 40' dry vans in wind-and-watertight condition purchased in quantities of 10 or more FOB Interport (picked up by you at Interport) may sell for as little as $1,500.00 each. • A typical price for a single wind-and-watertight dry van freshly painted using Interport's stock colors and delivered within a 100-mile radius of Interport might be $2,100.00. • Assuming the 30’ container is as expensive as the 40’ since it is less common, for 200 containers, the estimated cost of the shields will be about US$500K. It is probably cheaper than any of the schemes we have come up with so far. • It could be cheaper to buy the cargo containers in China, Hong Kong, or Taiwan.

More Related