1 / 36

MICE Funding Agency Committee Spokesperson’s remarks

MICE Funding Agency Committee Spokesperson’s remarks. MICE SCHEDULE update February 2012 V1. Run date:. Completed , submitted to publication ( Tracker station and EMR run in 2012). Q1 2013. Under construction:. ( may skip). STEP VI. NB: target date 2016.

kohana
Download Presentation

MICE Funding Agency Committee Spokesperson’s remarks

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. MICE FundingAgencyCommittee Spokesperson’sremarks

  2. MICE SCHEDULE update February 2012 V1 Run date: Completed, submitted to publication (Tracker station and EMR runin 2012) Q1 2013 Under construction: (may skip) STEP VI NB: target date 2016

  3. Provisional MICE SCHEDULE update: October 2012 m Run date: STEP I EMR run Q1-Q2 2013 Q2 2014 till Q4 2015 Under construction: STEPVI target date Q3 2018 Step V run possible Q3 2017

  4. Comments on schedule A significant effort wasdedicated by US management and UK management teams to generate a coordinatedresourceloadedschedule. Part of the shift in scheduleis due to built in resource limitations, part to technicalmishaps (which in turn impact resource-limitedschedule) Step IV The breakdown of delays with respect to the previous (MPB3) schedule is as follows: + 4 months for warmups and retrainings of SS1 following the mishaps. + 2 months for full implementation of controls, monitoring and alarms + 2 months for surface shipping + 3x5 weeks for re-training the magnets at RAL Which totals up to ~12 months Most of thisis the consequence of learning how the magnetbehaves. Somerecoverycanbeenvisaged -- careful planning of shipping couldrecover part of 2 months -- running the end-coilsattheir operating current (ratherthansolenoidcurrent) willpossiblysave time and helium on the trainings (trim Power Supply) -- considering if magneticfieldmeasurements in situ maybepostponed (risk?) But -- any new incident wouldcostat least 2 months -- magneticfield mitigation is not home-free yet

  5. Spectrometersolenoid 5+1 cryocooler design Magnet During Training

  6. SpectrometerSolenoid 1 – status(1) 0. considerableincrease of task force at LBNL, + Roy Preece (RAL) + Fermilab, Daresbury However Roy Preeceleft May 2012 1. first magnetwascompleted and closedmid April 2012. Cool-down started 22 May. 2. Heliumshortage in the US! Fermilab came to the rescueseveral times 3. Excellent thermal balance of magnet (5+1 cryocoolers!) : 4.5 Watts in reserveat 4K 4. Magnet training started 14 Junewith a first quenchat 185 A (nominal 270A) and afterseveral training runsup to 245 A (on 3 July) whichwas the intermediate goal (90%) 5. During the training run on 3d July a HTS lead (coil E1) went normal-conducting 6. magnetwarmed up to examine HTS leads 7. analysisshowedthat HTS leadhad been slightlyresistive M1 M2 E1 Center E2 NB realizedthat end coils E1, E2 were running at Center currentinstead of 20-40% lower

  7. HTS Lead Resistances Failed Lead 10x better, but worrisome New Lead In the noise HTS lead resistances measured over numerous training cycles magnetwaswarmed up and leadwaschanged. ‘worrisomeleads willbechangedatlaterstaged by precaution.

  8. SpectrometerSolenoid 1 – status(2) 8. After exchange of HTS ead, cool down wascomplete on 9 Aug 2012. 9. training restarted (quenchatlowercurrent?) Magnetneedsretrainingafter cool-downs! 10. magnetreached operating currents +1% on 17 September 2012 thenquenched magnetacceptance test is 24 h at nominal current – was not done. 11. after last quench, cold mass heaterturned off, and controlsdid not restart pressure drop in magnet, implosion of a (deficient) pressure relief valve and contamination of magnetwith air, blocking vent lineswithice. 12. Magnet warm up 13 will not restart until -- review of procedures, control and monitoring -- change of PRV, suspiciousleads, etc… -- implementation of trim power supplies to avoid excessive current in E1, E2. -- i.e. magnetfullyoperational. This islikely to be in Q1 2013 ; US group proactive. 14. meanwhilemagnet 2 rebuildwillbecompleted 15. presentscheduleforesees shipping in August 2013 of bothmagnets thisis due to need to have magnet team atonly one place at a time. Air freightinvestigated (cost!). Surface transport assumed (~2 months) someoptimizationstill possible.

  9. last quench: 17/09/2012

  10. Magnetneedsretraining after warm-ups Need to implement trim power supply for end coils E1, E2

  11. 1st AFC Magnet at RAL 24 October 2012 Note: not an operationalmagnetyet! commissioning to bedoneat RAL  • . System set-up and operation check • Leak check magnet under vacuum and pressure • Pre-cooling with LN2 to 80-90K • Cool-down with Helium to 4K • Steady state thermal performance check zero boil off • Cryocooler excess performance check • Step by step current ramp to full current (Flip mode) • Thermal performance check • Step by step current ramp to full current (Solenoid mode) • Thermal performance check

  12. Receipt and test at RAL Installation of the He turret pipework reception of the magnet in the R9 test facility; cryocooler compressors in place, water and electrical supplies available. R9 has been cleared and tidied. The floor has been marked with the 5 gauss limit and the scaffolding and magnet supports are in place. Tesla have already secured adequate supplies of helium that should cover the commissioning. Once the magnet has been commissioned CERN will be performing a full field map. Scaffolding from CM34 18 October 2012 T.Bradshaw

  13. A MAJOR HURDLE: We have been waiting for magnets for a long time… -- and soonwewill havemagneticfields! Group wasformed in July 2011 after CM30 (Oxford) to studyeffect of magneticfield on Rungalarmat CM33 (Glasgow)  intense worksince Magnet Group Vicky Bayliss Victoria Blackmore John Cobb Mike Courthold Roy Preece Mike Zisman .... .... • Cryo cooler compressors. • Power supplies, controls. • PPS door interlocks • Turbo pumps, primary pumps, • Gate valves (limit switches) • MCB’s, RCB’s, Relays • ……..and the list goes on

  14. Issues Original Control Rack position Original Compressor position The problem -- no return yokes on MICE magnets -- MICE hall shielding OK for Linac and ISIS, MICE control room -- local shieldingwouldsuck up magneticfieldwaybeyond ‘empty’ simulation Step IV Solenoid mode 240 MeV/C Beta 42cm 100 Gauss 50 Gauss 5 Gauss

  15. Magneticfield mitigation Major worktook place to list all sensitive equipment and evaluate impact of mag. fields on them to evaluatemagneticfield in the hall in presence of magnetic masses Solutions 1. ‘Global’ (UK group): no major additionalshielding, displace hardware away -- place racks behindnorthwall (in place of future RF power) -- place compressors on West wall (end side of experiment) -- applyshieding (mu-metal as appropriate) for thingsthat cant move thisis default solution atpresent canonlywork for step IV – not for step VI 2. ‘local’ (US groups): add ‘return yoke’ to coolingchannel -- still in calculation ‘conceptual design’ phase but promising -- engineering effort, cost, mechanical issues in the hall, timing! concept canworkalso for step VI 3. possible useage of plant roomwouldmake a lot of problemseasier! Will review situation in Jan 2013 and aim to decide to avoidfutherdelay to step IV

  16. MICE magneticfield mitigation Global solution Step IV - Racks

  17. MICE magneticfield mitigation Global solution Step IV - Compressors

  18. MICE magneticfield mitigation Plant room Step VI Power and control racks behind North wall will need to move to accommodate RF amplifiers. Discussion of possibility of using ISIS plant room as a rack room underway. Additional compressors installed to the West wall – structural aspects installed during Step IV mitigation. Partial return yolk concept applicable for next step.

  19. Current / Future Work To get good shielding horizontally: need continuous steel in azimuthal direction Geometry Tube of radius 1.2 m wall thickness 10 cm azimuthally -50..50° weight: 30t MICE magneticfield mitigation return yoke solution 1.5 m R1.2 2 m (Note: not to scale) Slide from Holger Witte presentation at CM34

  20. MICE magneticfield mitigation return yoke solution Step VI Geometry CC Spectrometer CC Spectrometer FC Slide from Holger Witte presentation at CM34

  21. Absorbers LiqH2 System Successful test in August 2012 – satisfied goals & safety procedures Cryogenic efficiency is good Control system largely debugged Integrated into MLCR controls Temperature control Heaters critical when H2 flow slows Hydride bed needs more instrumentation next: Integration with AFC and LH2 vessel LiH absorber complete At Fermilab DOE field office working on shipping

  22. EMR(Geneva, with help from FNAL, Milano/Como, Brunel) simulations Expect construction to be complete in 3 months thencosmic test (1 month) and shipping to RAL. Run Q2 2013

  23. Tracker Single Station Test (May 2012) • Successful test with spare station (3 view) • Timed in with ISIS RF important for DAQ • Efficiencies look good Some known dead channels • Some issues with calibration Automated calibration system being developed • David Adey Chris Heidt

  24. STEP IV EXPERIMENTS (2014-2015) NB timing of Liq H2willdepend on timing w.r.t. 6 month ISIS shut-down Aug’14 to Feb’15 No absorber Alignment Opticsstudies Liq H2 absorber (full/empty) Multiple scattering Energyloss  Cooling Solid absorber(s) LiH Plastic C, Al, Cu LiHWedge absorber Emittance exchange

  25. Moving towards Step VI RF Cavities 201 MHz Cavities All complete - First cavity electro-polished Single cavity test stand completed & at Fermilab Automated actuator driver to tune cavity being developed Full MICE 201 MHz RF production cavity test in MuCool Test Area at Fermilab

  26. Coupling Coils

  27. Coupling Coils II MICE Project Board - October 31, 2012 Alan Bross First cold massarrivedfrom Qi Huan (Beijing) Sept 2012 Completed at LBNL Cooling tubes welded,Epoxy impregnation, LHereservoir, QP circuitry However, cooling tube developed leak Repair plan being developed to satisfy vacuum vessel code When OK willsend to fermilab for testing Test of cold mass + windingreviewat Qi Huan willdecidewinding of 3 more cold masses. Construction plan for 3 couplingcoils MUCOOL, MICE1, MICE2 set up

  28. Fermilab Solenoid Test Facility MICE Project Board - October 31, 2012 Alan Bross

  29. Project Task Flow Coil Winding at QiHuan Cover plate welding at HIT Coil Test Prep at LBNL Cryostat Sub-Assembly Fab at LBNL Cryostat Assembly/Integration at FNAL Dewar Test of Coil at FNAL RF Cavities at LBNL RFCC Fit Up at FNAL Ship to RAL for Final Assembly DOE Review of Muon Accelerator Program (FNAL, August 29 - 31, 2012)

  30. Moving towards Step VI RF Cavities MICE Project Board - October 31, 2012 Alan Bross More from Kevin Ronald 201 MHz Cavities All complete - First cavity electro-polished Single cavity test stand completed & at Fermilab Automated actuator driver to tune cavity being developed Full MICE 201 MHz RF production cavity test in MuCool Test Area at Fermilab

  31. Moving towards Step VI MICE Project Board - October 31, 2012 Alan Bross RF project has a WBS level2 manager and project leader, Kevin Ronald (Strathclyde) Progressing on RF layout No coax under wall Modified coax going over wall – simplified Improved access for amplifier installation

  32. RF Power Systems MICE Project Board - October 31, 2012 Alan Bross Medium power amplifiers Daresbury Lab – 240 kW from first 4616 system Procured needed tetrode amplifier system thru UMiss – operating at 240 kW DL making significant progress refurbishing 2 other amplifiers High power amplifiers First one – full power test using new TH116 Triode valve – July Connect up and taken gradually up to running level of 32 kV Both amplifiers showing high gain and electrical-to-RF conversion efficiency At 1.2 MW a resistor failed in part of 116 PS – upgraded in Sept? Ongoing work Control & measurement of RF gradient and phase Deadline – amplifier operational in MICE Hall – Sept 2013

  33. Step VI to run in second half of 2018 Analysis of the longer time estimate with respect to MPB3 is as follows: -- the test of the first cold mass has been delayed by 6 months. -- the preparation of fabrication drawings for the cryostats is almost one year later. -- the construction time for the cryostats is longer (9 months instead of 6) -- the integration time is also longer (15 months instead of 12) Spectrometersolenoid ‘incidents’ have had an impact of nearly a year. The restis resource management. Time recoverypossibilities for step VI involve -- use of MUCOOL magnet as MICE CC 2 . This requires -- MUCOOL program to becompleted in 18 Months -- MUCOOL magnet to beoperationalwithcryocoolers. -- couldsave O(>6 months) and a lot of resources -- new collaborator performs e.g. integration task for the MICE magnets -- discussion has started with the CERN ATLAS magnet group, -- careful planning and job description needed -- preferred plan to perform construction of 2 (or 3) CC manetsat FNAL needscommittmentfrom FNAL. Step V couldbeassembled to run in the second half of 2017 woulddelaystep VI further

  34. RISKS on MICE 0. Verystretchedfunding:anytechnical incident  delay 1. Manpower issues danger of attrition of the project if it lengthens -- lose expertise of people moving on -- have to re-learn and this leads to a) time loss and b) mistakes -- lose enthusiasm of volunteer institutes 2. controls monitoring, alarms (C&M) as an acute example of point 1, C&M = last protection against damaging very expensive MICE equipment, setbacks and delays.  each component of MICE should have one clearly identified person responsible for controls, monitoring and alarms (and not only for providing the hardware for it). At this moment the responsibility rests on one person only for the whole of MICE 3. MICE magnet system The transition from single magnets to full magnet system may be painful and associated with a number of ‘glitches’ and quenches. We have added 5 weeks for retraining of the magnets, but we are anxious to see whether it happens at each time we have to change the magnetic configuration, such as (and in particular) the change from flip to non-flip mode

  35. 4. Magnetic field mitigation -- Step IV baseline global shielding (GS) to relocate the sensitive equipment along the west hall (downstream of MICE) or behind the north shielding wall (where the RF should eventually go).  risk to overlook some equipment that would turn out to be critical. -- ‘return yoke’ solution is not engineered yet and could lead to significant expenses – and needed for step VI -- recommended to obtain from ISIS usage of the ‘ plant room’ next to the MICE hall is less risky.   5. Helium availability 6. RF project: -- T116 availability remains a threat -- expertise in the high power part of the amplifiers is scarce. It is important to establish a network of relations with ISIS and CERN to allow for occasional consultancy -- RF in magnetic field is not a solved problem and could still cause a bad surprise either in the cavities themselves or in the couplers etc…  mitigation, operation of MICE RF cavity in the fringe field of MTA (2013) and MUCOOL testing program with full size magnet in 2015 7. Lack of staff on project for operations,particularly with requisite accelerator operations experience for operation of the cooling channel, magnets and RF cavities. The operation-dedicated staff is at this moment not funded.

  36. Conclusions 1. There isgreatprogress all over MICE (LH2, DAQ, FC,…) 2. We have had a serioussetback in the schedulewith the Spectrometersolenoid –yet SS1 has reached full field(but is not operationalyet) 3. MICE (UK+US) have produced a resourceloadedschedule to step VI. This isbigprogress! 4. This (2. + 3.) places Step VI at the limit of timeliness in 2018. Stillstep VI and itsexperimentalrichness and thouroughtestingabilitiesis the goal of the experiment. Wecouldconsiderhaving a stop-over atstepV – but only if weabsolutely have to – nowis *not* the moment to decide. 5. There are a few ideas on how to improve the schedulewithin the envelope. 6. There are manyrisks to the schedulemost of whichrelated to the lack of manpower and resources. Anyglitchleads to delays. 7. The most efficient solution remainsapplication of appropriate and well targeted influx of manpower: highly beneficial and we believe economical in the long run. 8. The MICE team remains proudly dedicated to achieving the first demonstration of ionization cooling.

More Related