1. Spectrometer Solenoid Recovery: Options for Moving Forward
Mark Palmer
BNL
April 5, 2016

2. Mark Palmer | MICE RLS/MPB Review (RAL)
Outline
Recap of December 2015 Review
Overview
Preliminary Cost Estimate
Plan Assumptions
Revised Risk Assessment
Key Recommendations
Updated Plan for US-based Procurement
Planning Process
Cost Assessment
Options
Peter Wanderer
Updated Engineering Effort
Engineering Package for a Make-Buy Decision
April 5, 2016
Mark Palmer | MICE RLS/MPB Review (RAL)

3. Recap of December Review
April 5, 2016
Mark Palmer | MICE RLS/MPB Review (RAL)

4. Spectrometer Solenoid Recovery Review
Overview
Review held December 3-4 at Fermilab
Web-site:
Committee:
Herman ten Kate CERN (Chair)
Jim Kerby ANL
Mike Anerella BNL
Peter Wanderer BNL
Tom Taylor CERN
Cesar Luongo JLAB
Peter McIntyre TAMU
Luigi Muzzi ENEA-Frascati
Observers:
Bruce Strauss DOE
Josef Boehm RAL
Oleg Kiricheck RAL/ISIS
April 5, 2016
Mark Palmer | MICE RLS/MPB Review (RAL)

5. SS Recovery: Cost Estimate
Preliminary cost estimate: $2.175M
Utilizes FNAL labor rates
Least expensive US laboratory option
Estimates considered closest to external vendor cost range
Includes moderate contingency (given that all except one step previously executed)
Key elements:
QP system upgrade
Design, Fabrication
Cold Test (pre-installation) of new cold mass
Goal: pre-train cold mass and show corrected training behavior prior to installation in cryostat
Critical process to minimize project risk
Final Assembly of He vessel
Disassembly of magnet
Re-assembly (integration of new cold mass)
Integration of SSD #2 in MICE Cooling Channel
April 5, 2016
Mark Palmer | MICE RLS/MPB Review (RAL)

6. Mark Palmer | MICE RLS/MPB Review (RAL)
Plan Assumptions
Critical assumptions:
US-based fabrication/procurement process
December schedule based on “in-house” (i.e., laboratory-based) repair
Why?
Only route to expend funds immediately and hence shorten overall schedule
US Vendor procurement requires having all funds on hand to begin bid process
Final portion of US reserve not in hand until start of US FY17
Plan consistent with SSD being in place on the MICE beam line by mid-February 2018
Can effectively consider this an “earliest possible” date
April 5, 2016
Mark Palmer | MICE RLS/MPB Review (RAL)

7. Revised Risk Assessment
Discussions at CM43 and October 2015 MPB looked at various options
But did not actually compare risks associated with the various options on a “level playing field”!
Updated risk analysis
Assessed the likelihood of completely losing SSD He space integrity with additional quenches
Conclusion: Any option which re-uses current SSD after Step IV is VERY HIGH RISK!!!
We can not certify the M1-M2 He space to vacuum feed-thru for repeated quenches
Cooling Demo requires SSD warm-up and re-training, hence we assess the likelihood of magnet survival as being low
Only realistic options for completion of MICE Cooling Demo
Build new cold mass
Best option for mitigating risk while re-utilizing existing cryostat
Closest to fitting within available US budget
Build new magnet
Almost certainly exceeds funds available for US procurement
Re-build existing cold mass
Recommended for serious consideration at December 2015 SSD Recovery Review
As a back-up if problems encountered during fabrication of new cold mass
April 5, 2016
Mark Palmer | MICE RLS/MPB Review (RAL)

8. Mark Palmer | MICE RLS/MPB Review (RAL)
Key Recommendations
Endorsed Cold Mass Fabrication as most plausible route forward (cost and time)
Key Recommendations (my paraphrase):
Complete design and implement quench protection system changes as described at review
Use a vendor for new cold mass (leave open option to accept lab bids)
Increase current margin for E2
Allow more time/effort for cold mass preparation than shown in December’s preliminary cost and schedule
April 5, 2016
Mark Palmer | MICE RLS/MPB Review (RAL)

9. Updated Plan for US-Based Procurement
April 5, 2016
Mark Palmer | MICE RLS/MPB Review (RAL)

10. Mark Palmer | MICE RLS/MPB Review (RAL)
Actions – Post Review
Committee Report received in January
MAP immediately:
Began preparations for an updated procurement package:
Initially for Budgetary Quotes
Then for Full RFP Process
Updated cost estimate
Based on committee recommendations, implemented an adjustment to the fabrication effort (but retained FNAL fabrication rates): a ~$2.5M to complete
Opened initial contacts with vendors
European US
Japanese
Additional analysis of as-built design to identify required elements of any bid to fabricate (see next slide)
April 5, 2016
Mark Palmer | MICE RLS/MPB Review (RAL)

11. Mark Palmer | MICE RLS/MPB Review (RAL)
Process I
Leverage BNL Experience w/RHIC e-lens solenoid a use BNL SC Mag. Div. to prepare updated procurement package
Tasks:
Evaluate existing models and documentation and prepare an incremental set of documents for vendors
Establish metrics for technical evaluation of vendor proposals
Carry out 3D modeling of magnetic field to determine our level of flexibility in the design while maintaining the necessary SciFi Tracker field specifications
Carry out 3D modeling of mechanical structure to ensure our ability to adequately evaluate vendor proposals
Carry out preliminary analysis to execute a US laboratory bid
NOTE: such a bid is probably the only route to speeding up the fabrication process (otherwise we will need to accumulate FY17 funds for a full procurement)
Coordination: P. Wanderer, M. Anerella
April 5, 2016
Mark Palmer | MICE RLS/MPB Review (RAL)

12. Mark Palmer | MICE RLS/MPB Review (RAL)
Process II
Approach:
Preparation of an “As-Built” bid package
Use existing LBNL package
Update drawing package with as-built information (use models created during 2010 re-build)
Update package with “lessons learned”, updated design requirements, and technical evaluation information for vendor bids
Execute final design, procurement and fabrication effort for new QP system
Commissioning to start in <1 month
Then Step IV operations with SSD and SSU “as-is”
April 5, 2016
Mark Palmer | MICE RLS/MPB Review (RAL)

13. Technical Evaluations
Validate 3D model for ‘as-built’ package
Required to define interface and field-engineering procedures for installation of new cold mass (Plate)
Forms basis to carry out updated 3D mechanical modeling (Witte, Marone)
Evaluate coil design to:
Increase current margin (Gupta)
Preserve the field uniformity specification in the tracker volume
Provide a technical basis for evaluating any bids
Can we define what “good enough” means?
Following presentation by P. Wanderer will summarize the status of the engineering effort
Will emphasize a couple key points in advance
April 5, 2016
Mark Palmer | MICE RLS/MPB Review (RAL)

14. Cost assessment and options
April 5, 2016
Mark Palmer | MICE RLS/MPB Review (RAL)

15. Mark Palmer | MICE RLS/MPB Review (RAL)
Cost Estimate
Based on US procurement requirements
Preliminary estimates from some vendors
Preparation of bid package: $116K
Have received some preliminary cold mass fabrication estimates
These are ranges and not budgetary quote quality
2 lowest estimates correspond to range ~$ M
Vendor range: $0.5M to $0.65M
Full estimate includes oversight, VAT, overheads and contingency
NOTE: overall a large estimate range has been observed
Assume US lab provides cold test: ~$363K
Roughly consistent with ~$2M procurement cost
Suggests that use of Fermilab fabrication rates was reasonable for estimating vendor bids
NOTE: Vendors have regularly indicated preference for full magnet bid
Exceeds US Reserve
See talk by PG
April 5, 2016
Mark Palmer | MICE RLS/MPB Review (RAL)

16. Example of Arriving at a “Fully Wrapped” Cost Estimate
Full Magnet Estimate
Use ASG magnet estimate as example
Lowest magnet estimate received…
Contingency assessed as if formal bid
April 5, 2016
Mark Palmer | MICE RLS/MPB Review (RAL)

17. Comments & Conclusion (I)
Peter will describe:
Clear paths exist to optimizing current margin
HOWEVER, the analysis of the mechanical issues indicates that any reasonable increase in current margin will NOT, by itself, mitigate the anomalous training behavior of these magnets
a A more complete engineering solution is required!
Our quoted cost
Represents our best estimate of funds that must be set aside to have a reasonable chance of success with a US procurement
Exceeds the available US reserve
US-only procurement could only be provided by an earlier-than-planned conclusion of general US support in FY17 (~April 1, 2017)
Further adjustments to the estimate will only be feasible after validated bids are in hand
April 5, 2016
Mark Palmer | MICE RLS/MPB Review (RAL)

18. Comments & Conclusion (II)
Other options may exist
Procurement of magnet could be moved outside of US (with partial or full funds transfer)
Other accounting systems have different rules and rates
Different overheads
No requirement to fully state EDIA and support costs provided by purchaser
More palatable option?
Requires funding agency action
April 5, 2016
Mark Palmer | MICE RLS/MPB Review (RAL)