1

MICE-UKNF Oversight CommitteeMICE Project Manager Report

Contents:•General Technical organisation and status•Target update•Decay solenoid update•Infrastructure•Detectors and beamline•Progress with the cooling channel elements•Risks and critical areas•Coping with limited resources

Andy Nichols, STFC, 27th January 2009

2

Technical Organisation

Project organisations seems to be on an even keel:– PM/Technical Co-ordinator – Andy Nichols– Hall Manager/Principal Contractor – Willie Spensley– Hall Foreman – Ash Jamdagni– ISIS liaison – Chris Rogers– MICE Operations Manager (MOM) – rolling monthly

post, currently Marco Appolonio– And we have a stable group of well-motivated

technicians from both STFC and the widerCollaboration•Communication and meetings:

– Technical Board – now monthly– Weekly Hall planning meetings – very ‘hands-on’– Now-weekly MICO (Mice Installation and

Commissioning) meetings – each sub work-package has defined milestones that are tracked each week

– Project progress is also reported regularly to PSAG & CPMB meetings-

– And monthly video-conference to MICE

General Status• Since the last OsC meeting, work has continued as fast as possible in

order to:– Meet MICE deadlines– Accommodate the experimental programme– Fit with the ISIS calendar– And meet the needs of external collaborators

• The infrastructure workpackages have dominated last year– Staff usage in these areas has been heavy to meet the above– But it’s just about finished

• MICE-UK has also had to accommodate some unforseen workload and associated costs:– Serious problems with target and decay solenoid– Remanufacture of rolling platforms– Construction of sliding beamstopper

• Manufacture of spectrometer solenoids is a concern• Production of AFC just starting• RFCC coil winding has started• Tracker #1 ready for use

4

Target

Still have problems with target:– Earlier in 2008, the offline target shaft seized in its

bearings– A major problem!– Target group reinforced with more engineering effort– Weekly highly focussed technical meetings now held– Cause of seizure has been investigated, high-speed

camera studies show evidence of lateral displacement of shaft during acceleration – could cause unforseen side force on bearings

– But no ‘smoking gun’– Plan in place to design more rigid shaft (for same

mass) and simplified bearings– Plan to be ready by April/May 2009

•Then in December, the installed ISIS target failed…….

Target

Shaft – cross to cylStiffer for similar mass

Simplified bearings

Better alignedBearings, machined In one setting

Target

• The ISIS target also appears to have failed mechanically – a magnet retaining piece on the shaft might have vibrated loose and jammed and bent the shaft– But too early to tell for sure

• The blade tip was melted – not clear of cause or effect• Two bits of good news:

– No visible dust was generated– The planned upgrade – redesign will address what we

believe caused this• Redesign will focus on:• Shaft cross section – cruciform to cylindrical• Simpler bearings – given by above• DLC QA – surface finish very important• Bearing alignment and profile• Generally more rigorous engineering

7

Decay solenoid

PSI (Decay solenoid)– Problems with Linde compressor & cooling plant are now

fixed– But cooldown earlier in 2008 exposed problem with

solenoid:– There are two sets of five S/C coils (1-5) (6-10) with 10 at

the downstream end– Coil 10 is normally conducting– Better instrumentation introduced– Much voltage data analysed– Possibility of unforseen radiant heatload on coils at

downstream end– Can fix by re-working MLI Multi-layer Insulation– But need to remove cryostat end cap in DSA during ISIS

run– MUST finish by March 31st…

Decay solenoidDecay Solenoid

– When it’s fixed, we need to really know it works, so include testing and quench protections, etc, this will take some time

– Fixing the solenoid has to take place during next ISIS user run

– 23 tonnes of fixed shielding has been fixed inside the synchrotron to allow this – a major achievement in a very short time by the installation team.

8

9

Infrastructure

Few problems to report:– Both shield walls are complete, except for four plates

at North wall – due this week– All galleries and stairways complete– Mound excavation & LH2 ductwork is done– False floor fabrication is done, installation delayed due

to hard pieces in concrete and striking water when drilling anchors

– All fixed now – every effort bring made to complete by 31st January

– Extract fan on order – non MICE cost– Main door replacement on order – mostly non-MICE

cost– Air conditioning, NE corner only – tender for

installation started – must complete before 31st March

10

Infrastructure

•Rolling platforms 1 & 7 were delivered late 2008– Unfortunate error by manufacturers – needed re-

making– Delay bad but not showstopper– Agreed to contribute to part of cost to maintain

progress

•Electrical work has made good progress– Very clear leadership by DL staff– They initiated user-friendly monthly meetings, all tasks

documented and progressed methodically, seamless link with mechanical WPs

– Both electrical and mechanical infrastructure WPs in very good technical shape

– Now moving to Phase Two tasks…….

Infrastructure

11

12

Infrastructure

LH2 R&D project– Has suffered badly due to the decay solenoid work

(the same group does both)– Had review during October:

• R & D hardware had stalled at manufacturer• Control system philosophy seemed to be stuck in a loop, blocking

progress to full design and obligatory safety reviews• But the real problem is lack of qualified manpower

– So what’s happened?• Visits to manufacturers by Project Engineer & STFC Procurement

staff - R&D project has re-started• Control system plan and revised milestones to be put to MICE

Project at Large during January• Authorisation to recruit has been obtained through Technology

Dept at STFC – One graduate engineer and one engineer/physicist, interviews in Feb/March

• Internal ductwork and enclosures designed & ready to tender

– Currently this work-package is ‘at risk’

13

Infrastructure & Phase One

RF power amplifier refurbishment:– Two CERN units are complete, are now at DL– One DL unit is almost done– CERN units will be first to be tested, early this year– RF project is also suffering from manpower shortage,

but VNs have been authorised– RAL staff have visited DL to start off how we actually

in- stall the amplifiers in the Hall – not as easy as it looks (of course!) – part of Phase II though

14

Detectors, beamline & tracker

•Good progress:– TOF0 & TOF1 installed and working– Noise problems with Beam Profile monitors fixed– KL is still robust and working

•Tracker #1 is ready for integration•Now have a dedicated tracker assembly/test area in R8 at RAL•Tracker #2 ready for testing•Diffuser is in final stages of testing at Oxford, comes to RAL during March 2009•Tracker patch panel has been successfully trial fitted with diffuser

15

Progress with Cooling Channel elements

Spectrometer solenoid:– In assembly at Wang NMR in US. Then to FNAL for field

map end Feb 2009, at RAL April-June 2009 – currently very late, problems with rad-shield cooling and vent system – a major worry

RFCC– In early manufacture at Harbin, China and US. No real

problems, successful reviews, delivery to RAL April 2010

AFC– Advanced design stage with Tesla Engineering in UK,

problems with coil former design and quench protection mechanism – delivery end December 2009 – two months later than planned

16

Risks and critical areas

•Focus will remain on Target, Decay solenoid and spectrometer solenoid; the vital ingredients for Step II•All of these subsystems have serious problems•It is not clear that LH2 project can be delivered on time with the current level of manpower and certainly not with a cut•A 2MVA electrical supply upgrade is essential if MICE is to run at steps III & IV

– Detailed estimates have been made– It’s £75K– And we need it by early 2010– Lead time of transformers is 30 weeks– Need to worry now, non-MICE cost, but WFL route has

dried up– Last hope is RAL Ops Board…….

17

Coping with limited resources

•The current funding profile allows step IV running to start at April 2010•Depends on all subsystems being in place, but it’s the baseline we have•It’s clear that Phase II is overspending fast, need to put brakes on:•One idea:

– FY 09/10 will be dominated by arrival of spectrometer solenoid, late spring 2009

– It’s the major part of step II, one way of slowing down is to only make step II in this period

– & tailor the manpower profile to suit – we might need to make 50% cut

– Capital would be reduced – some equipment already committed

Coping with limited resources

Capital Requirement Until April 2009 – essential items– NE Air con system………………………………..62K– Rolling platform hardware…………………….2K– Spectrometer solenoid hardware…………….0.75K– Hall consumables, PPE & lifting……………...15K– Tent & frame for DS work………………….…1K– Bottles dry air, pipes & regulator…………...1.5K– MLI & tape for DS……………………………….1.5K– Service Linde plant………………………….....5K– Target re-manufacture………………………..20K– Fee for CDM consultancy…………………..…5K– Synchrotron steel shielding………………….16K– Compressor stands for tracker readout….10K– Step II electrical hardware…………………..78K

Total, £217.75K

Coping with limited resources

Non-essentials, or can be delayed– Extract fans & oxygen depletion monitors……10K– Spectrometer solenoid lifting frame……………5K– PPS hardware, main Hall…………………………2K– RF tubes…………………………………………..…144K– RF Co-Ax transitions………………………………12K– RF consumables……………………………………1.5K– MICE vac system pumping rigs…………………18K– Diffuser hardware…………………………………5K– TOF 2 support parts………………………………3K– LH2 ducting and enclosures…………………….30K– Payment for LH2 R&D hardware……………….52.5K– H2 system relief valves & cryocoolers…………9K– LH2 instrumentation………………………………10K– AFC payment to Tesla…………………………….364K

Total, £666K

Coping with limited resources

But there’s a big downside:– The International schedule will not be met and the

UK’s reputation put at risk.

If we make a staff effort cut:– It must be against some type of de-scope or slowdown,

as above– We must not attempt the same project scope with half

the staff, otherwise……– Remaining project staff would be too highly stressed –

this is a very serious concern– Clearly this is the start of a significant discussion