1. NEW GHS DRAWINGS COMPARAISON
5 Mev Vessel Quentin (IBA China) August the 18
th
2009.
Page 1 of 10
The aim of this document is to present and to compare different patterns for the new gas handling sys-
tem (GHS), which would be used for 3 MeV to 5 MeV dynamitrons. There are 3 solutions proposed: one
focuses on simplicity and cost savings, another one focuses on compactedness, and the third one is a com-
promise.
All these three versions use only one kind of pipes: 2’’ stainless steel pipes, whereas the current GHS
uses three different diameters of pipe: 2’’, 2.5’’ and 3’’, and the material is copper (raw material is expensive
and weld is also expensive because it requires a solder composed of silver).
Moreover, all the manual valves of the new versions have been put on the front side because it is more
convenient for the users. All the external connections have been also put on the front side and are horizontal.
Thus, it enables to connect them from to top or the bottom, depending on the customers’ plant configuration.
CURRENT GHS
Figure 1: current GHS. Front view.

2. NEW GHS DRAWINGS COMPARAISON
5 Mev Vessel Quentin (IBA China) August the 18
th
2009.
Page 2 of 10
Figure 2: current GHS. Back view.
Figure 3: current GHS. Top view.

3. NEW GHS DRAWINGS COMPARAISON
5 Mev Vessel Quentin (IBA China) August the 18
th
2009.
Page 3 of 10
VERSION 1 – SIMPLICITY AND COST SAVINGS
This version is the simplest and the cheapest because the number of fittings is reduced. But in opposi-
tion, this version is not so compacted. But, as we can see below, there is an unoccupied volume behind on
the left, in which we can put the control panel.
Figure 4: version 1 of GHS. Simplest and cheapest version. Front view.
Only drawback: this
valve is a little far.
This space is to make easy
the access to valves for
users.

4. NEW GHS DRAWINGS COMPARAISON
5 Mev Vessel Quentin (IBA China) August the 18
th
2009.
Page 4 of 10
Figure 5: version 1 of GHS. Back view.
Figure 6: version 1 of GHS. Top view.
Empty space. Possibility
to put here the control
panel.

5. NEW GHS DRAWINGS COMPARAISON
5 Mev Vessel Quentin (IBA China) August the 18
th
2009.
Page 5 of 10
Figure 7: version 1 of GHS with the control panel put in the back. Back view.
Figure 8: vesrsion 1 of GHS with the control panel put in the back. Top view.

6. NEW GHS DRAWINGS COMPARAISON
5 Mev Vessel Quentin (IBA China) August the 18
th
2009.
Page 6 of 10
VERSION 2 – COMPACTEDNESS
This version is the most compacted. If you want a more compacted version than this one, your system
will require too much fittings. So it will be more complex, more expensive, with a higher leak risk, and with
more irregularities of conduits (what involves a loss of pressure).
There are two drawbacks with this version: first the inlet vacuum filter is not connected directly to
the vacuum pump, thus the risk of leak increases. Then we must raise the height of the compressor: the
frame will be a little more complicated.
Figure 9: version 2 of GHS, most compacted version. Front view.
The height of the com-
pressor must be raised
Two flanges and an
elbow have to be added.

7. NEW GHS DRAWINGS COMPARAISON
5 Mev Vessel Quentin (IBA China) August the 18
th
2009.
Page 7 of 10
Figure 10: version 2 of GHS. Back view.
Figure 11: version 2 of GHS. Top view.

8. NEW GHS DRAWINGS COMPARAISON
5 Mev Vessel Quentin (IBA China) August the 18
th
2009.
Page 8 of 10
VERSION 3 – COMPROMISE BETWEEN COMPACTEDNESS AND SIMPLICITY
Personally I don’t really like this version because it introduces more fittings and the gain in volume is
not so important. In addition, we have seen with the version 1 that this unoccupied volume could be filled
with the control panel.
Figure 12: version 3 of GHS. Front view.

9. NEW GHS DRAWINGS COMPARAISON
5 Mev Vessel Quentin (IBA China) August the 18
th
2009.
Page 9 of 10
Figure 13: version 3 of GHS. Back view.
Figure 14: version 3 of GHS. Top view.
The gain in volume is not
so important. Still have an
empty space.

10. NEW GHS DRAWINGS COMPARAISON
5 Mev Vessel Quentin (IBA China) August the 18
th
2009.
Page 10 of 10
COMPARISON BETWEEN THE 4 VERSIONS CARACTERISTICS
Elbows Crosses Tees Flanges
Special
fittings
Total
fittings
Valves
Total lenght
of pipes
Current V 12 0 10 16 4 42 14
To be determi-
ned later
Version 1 6 1 6 9 4 26 13 tbd
Version 2 9 2 4 11 4 30 13 tbd
Version 3 9 2 4 9 4 28 13 tbd