1 / 28

Conventional Construction Working Group Meeting

Conventional Construction Working Group Meeting. Tom Lackowski L2 Conventional Facilities ( tomski@fnal.gov ) 630.840.3640. Overview . Overview of Work to Date. Project Definition Reports Current Building Concept Requirements Costs Issues Summary. 8 GeV Booster.

shani
Download Presentation

Conventional Construction Working Group Meeting

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. Conventional Construction Working Group Meeting Tom Lackowski L2 Conventional Facilities (tomski@fnal.gov) 630.840.3640 Mu2e Working Group May 19, 2010

  2. Overview • Overview of Work to Date. • Project Definition Reports • Current Building Concept • Requirements • Costs • Issues • Summary Mu2e Working Group May 19, 2010

  3. 8 GeV Booster Project Definition Reports for September 2008 and May 2009 located in Doc DB #357. Sites that extracted beam at AP 60 were studied. Site near AP 20 at same location as the original P-Bar source tune up beam. Alt. 2 Site AP 20 ANTIPROTON SOURCE AP 60 GIESSE ROAD Study Site Alt. 1 Site Mu2e Working Group May 19, 2010

  4. Alt. One Siting • Beam Extracted at AP-60 routed west. • Deep Beamline to transverse Indian Creek • Potential Wetland Issues • Disturb woods adjacent to creek Mu2e Working Group May 19, 2010

  5. Alt. One Site Plan • Services Routed from Main Injector/Mini BooNe • Greenfield site • Beamline interrupted by Indian Creek Mu2e Working Group May 19, 2010

  6. Alt. One Detector Hall Plan Mu2e Working Group May 19, 2010

  7. Alt One Summary • Detector situated under crane, massive amount of shielding blocks used for 21 Feet of Cosmic Shielding • Construction estimated at 18 months • Loaded Construction cost estimated at $41 Mil • 30% Contingency • Risks included: • Wetlands / Flood Plain • Programmatic Requirements • Subsurface Characteristics Mu2e Working Group May 19, 2010

  8. Alt. Two Siting • Beam Extracted at AP-20. Mu2e Working Group May 19, 2010

  9. Alt. Two Site Plan • Services Routed from CUB/ Antiproton • Previously disturbed site Mu2e Working Group May 19, 2010

  10. Alt. Two Detector Hall Plan • Detector Level Plan Mu2e Working Group May 19, 2010

  11. Alt. One Detector Hall Plan • Grade Level Plan Mu2e Working Group May 19, 2010

  12. Alt Two Summary • Detector situated under two crane runways, 12 Feet of Cosmic Shielding • Construction estimated at 18 months • Loaded Construction cost estimated at $26 Mil • 34% Contingency • Risks included: • Programmatic Requirements • Subsurface Characteristics Mu2e Working Group May 19, 2010

  13. Current Site Plan Mu2e Working Group May 21, 2010

  14. Site Plan Mu2e Working Group May 19, 2010

  15. Detector Level Plan BEAMLINE PRODUCTION TRANSPORT DUMP ASSEMBLY AREA 2 ASSEMBLY AREA DETECTOR TARGET CELL WORK AREA / PRODUCTION SOLENOID TRANSPORT ELECTRONICS Mu2e Working Group May 21, 2010

  16. Grade Level Plan ASSEMBLY AREA BELOW UPPER STAGING AREA TRUCK BAY ASSEMBLE AREA 2 BELOW ELECTRICAL, / MECHANICAL / CONTROLS CRYO SUPPORT Mu2e Working Group May 19, 2010

  17. Section @ PS Mu2e Working Group May 19, 2010

  18. Section @ DS Mu2e Working Group May 19, 2010

  19. Longitudinal Section Mu2e Working Group May 19, 2010

  20. Beamline • Purpose: To house beamline equipment that transports beam from AntiProton Source to Production Solenoid. • 8’ wide x 8 ‘ high enclosure.(256 meters long) Constructed on cast-in-place concrete base slab using cut and cover excavation methods. • 21’ Shielding (not confirmed) • Personnel egress via stairs at each end; equipment access via shielded hatch • Location for Power Supplies not yet determined; may require a Service Building. Mu2e Working Group May 21, 2010

  21. Requirements / Specifications • Requirements / Specifications are acquired from the Project Team via: • Weekly Tech Board Meetings • Weekly Conventional Coordination Meetings • Bi-weekly Beamline Meetings • There is still a lot of work to develop a credible CDR. We will need to have either firm specifications or agreed upon placeholders by mid August to complete the scope drawings, system designs, cost estimate and schedule. This seems probable from the discussions so far. • Requirements document in progress. Mu2e Working Group May 19, 2010

  22. Environmental / Life Safety • The Conventional Construction aspects of the project is expected to conform to an existing CX. • A RFP for environmental investigation and delineation of the wetlands along Indian Creek has been issued. • If for some other reason (like beam energy) an EA is required then the Conventional Facilities will need to address all environmental impacts. • Initial review with Life Safety Consultant, SchirmerEngineering. Need to firm up elevations before formal review. • ODH mitigation discussed, will be developed with cryo and solenoid design. • Primary Beam Shielding Mu2e Working Group May 19, 2010

  23. Other L2 Management Docs • Preliminary Risk Registry • WBS • Integral Project Team Mu2e Working Group May 19, 2010

  24. Costs • Costs appear to be moving in upwards direction from the May 2009 PDR. Mu2e Working Group May 19, 2010

  25. Cost Breakdown Mu2e Working Group May 19, 2010

  26. Issues • Buildings “Architectural Significance” • Road Patterns • Beam Shutdown Construction “if we produced a dowdy site with shabby buildings, then the technical people we wanted to work with us would not come and the statesmen, who might judge us in part by appearances, would not, in the long run, give us the funds we would need for our physics.”“Starting Fermilab”, Robert Rathbun Wilson, 1992 Mu2e Working Group May 19, 2010

  27. Summary • A concept for the design of the Detector Hall has been developed. • The type of construction is typical at Fermilab. Low to medium risks are anticipated. • No known significant environmental risks. • Project Team providing requirements and feedback on overall design; system specific criteria development needed. Mu2e Working Group May 19, 2010

  28. Thank you for your attention. Questions? Mu2e Working Group May 19, 2010

More Related