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

Outline Recap of December 2015 Review –Plan Assumptions –Review Overview –Preliminary Cost Estimate –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)2

RECAP OF DECEMBER REVIEW April 5, 2016 Mark Palmer | MICE RLS/MPB Review (RAL)3

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)4

Spectrometer Solenoid Recovery Review Overview –Review held December 3-4 at Fermilab –Web-site: –Committee: Herman ten KateCERN(Chair) Jim KerbyANL Mike AnerellaBNL Peter WandererBNL Tom TaylorCERN Cesar LuongoJLAB Peter McIntyreTAMU Luigi MuzziENEA-Frascati –Observers: Bruce StraussDOE Josef BoehmRAL Oleg KiricheckRAL/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

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 NOTE: the above feed-thru is inaccessible until the damaged cold mass is removed from the cryostat 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)7

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)8

UPDATED PLAN FOR US- BASED PROCUREMENT April 5, 2016 Mark Palmer | MICE RLS/MPB Review (RAL)9

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):  ~$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)10

Process I Leverage BNL Experience w/RHIC e-lens solenoid  use BNL SC Mag. Div. to prepare updated procurement package –Tasks: 1.Evaluate existing models and documentation and prepare an incremental set of documents for vendors 2.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 3.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)11

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)12

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)13

COST ASSESSMENT AND OPTIONS April 5, 2016 Mark Palmer | MICE RLS/MPB Review (RAL)14

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 values: $0.5M and $0.65M –Full estimate includes oversight, VAT, overheads and contingency NOTE: overall a large vendor range has been observed ($500K to $2M) –BNL cold mass test estimate: ~$363K –2 lowest estimates consistent with overall ~$2.1M 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 April 5, 2016 Mark Palmer | MICE RLS/MPB Review (RAL)15 Exceeds US Reserve See talk by PG

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 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)16

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)17

BACKUPS April 5, 2016 Mark Palmer | MICE RLS/MPB Review (RAL)18

Example of Arriving at a “Fully Wrapped” Cost Estimate Full Magnet Estimate Use ASG magnet estimate as example –Lowest magnet estimate received… April 5, 2016 Mark Palmer | MICE RLS/MPB Review (RAL)19 Contingency assessed as if formal bid.