Conceptual Design and Safety Review of 12 GeV Upgrade Superconducting Magnets: Overview

1
Conceptual Design and Safety Review of 12 GeV
Upgrade Superconducting MagnetsOverview

Will Brooks Associate Project Manager for Physics
Conceptual Design and Safety Review of
Superconducting Magnets Jefferson Lab September
26-28, 2006
2
Outline

• Review charge
• Agenda for the review
• 12 GeV Project scope, experimental equipment
  scope
• 12 GeV Project status and schedule
• Superconducting Magnets status and schedule
• Brief description of the seven magnets
• Risk assessment and mitigation plans
• Safety integration into the design process

3
Charge to the Committee

• Are the conceptual designs for the seven
  superconducting magnets planned for the Hall B
  and C spectrometers sound, and likely to meet the
  technical performance requirements?
• Have the technical performance requirements been
  appropriately and sufficiently defined for this
  stage of the project?
• Are there any open technical issues, and if so is
  the RD plan adequate to address them?
• Are the costing methodologies used for estimating
  the magnet construction costs sound?
• Have ESH considerations been adequately
  incorporated into the conceptual design, and are
  they appropriately included in the project
  planning?

4
Agenda for the Review

• Tuesday afternoon
• Hall C Magnets conceptual design
• Wednesday morning
• Hall B Magnets conceptual design
• Wednesday afternoon
• RD/PED/procurement plans, and cost estimation
• Thursday
• Committee report writing and closeout

5
Jefferson Lab Today

• Provides unique capabilities for 2000 member
  international user community to explore and
  understand the structure of matter at its most
  fundamental level (quarks and gluons).

• The SRF electron accelerator provides CW beams of
  unprecedented quality with a max beam energy of 6
  GeV.

C
B
A

• CEBAFs innovative design allows delivery of beam
  with unique properties to three experimental
  halls simultaneously, increasing scientific
  output.

• Each of the three halls offers complementary
  experimental capabilities and allows for large
  equipment installations to extend scientific
  reach.

6
Existing 6 GeV Experimental Instrumentation
Hall B
Hall A
Two high-resolution 4 GeV spectrometers
Large acceptance spectrometer electron/photon
beams
Hall C
7 GeV spectrometer, 1.8 GeV spectrometer, large
installation experiments
7
Scope of 12 GeV Upgrade
Upgrade is designed to build on existing
facility majority of accelerator and
experimental equipment have continued use
New Hall
Scope of the proposed project includes doubling
the accelerator beam energy, a new experimental
Hall and associated beamline, and upgrades to
the existing three experimental Halls.
Enhanced capabilities in existing Halls
8
Scope of 12 GeV Upgrade
9
Overview of Technical Performance Requirements
10
Experimental Equipment Cost
(FY06 k direct)
11
DOE Generic Project Timeline
We are here
12
12 GeV Upgrade Schedule

• (based on profile provided April 2006)

• 2004-2005 Conceptual Design (CDR)
• 2004-2008 Research and Development (RD)
• 2006 Advanced Conceptual Design (ACD)
• 2006-2009 Project Engineering Design (PED)
• 2008 Long Lead Procurement
• Not included in April 2006 profile
• JLab presented case to June 06 Lehman Review
  Committee readiness to baseline, positive impact
• Still a possibility?
• 2009-2013 Construction
• Accelerator shutdown start early 2012
• Accelerator commissioning late 2012-early 2013
• 2013-2014 Pre-Ops (beam commissioning)
• Hall commissioning start early-mid 2013

13
12 GeV Upgrade Status

• Near Term
• June 2006 DOE Annual Review of Project Progress
• Focus on progress in last year, and plans for
  CD-2B Performance Baseline review next year
• High marks for progress and planning
• August 2006 JLab PAC 30
• First review of 12 GeV proposals commissioning
  experiments
• Spokespersons make commitments to construction of
  equipment
• Key first step in identifying the research
  interests and significant contributions of
  international and other non-DOE collaborators
• September 2006 start Project Engineering
  Design (PED)
• 12 GeV is on track for CD-2 in Sept 2007 and CD-3
  in Sept 2008

14
12 GeV Funding Profile (April 2006)

• 300M TPC
• No Long Lead Construction start FY09

(including non-DOE)
15
Superconducting Magnets Status and Schedule

• Work performed on magnets so far supported by RD
  and Advanced Conceptual Design funds, lt400k
  total invested so far
• Engineering and design work (PED) beginning now
• Stage of conceptual design varies considerably
  for the seven magnets
• PED for these systems will take place for the
  next two years, followed by construction phase

16
Superconducting Magnets - Description

• Halls A and D will use existing SC magnets, no
  new magnets
• Hall B Two new SC magnets
• Solenoid
• Toroid
• Hall C Five new SC magnets
• Small horizontal-bend dipole
• Three quadrupoles
• Large dipole
• Seven new magnets in total

17
CLAS12 in Hall B
Forward Calorimeter
Preshower Calorimeter
Forward Cerenkov (LTCC)
Forward Time-of-Flight Detectors
Forward Drift Chambers
Superconducting Torus Magnet
Inner Cerenkov (HTCC)
Central Detector
Superconducting Solenoid Magnet
Inner Calorimeter
Reused detectors from CLAS
18
Hall B Solenoid

• Purposes
• Shield detectors from Møller electrons
• Momentum analysis for lower-momentum particles at
  larger angles
• Provide holding field for polarized target
• Size
• 78 cm ID
• 2 m long, magnetic length 1 m
• Maximum field
• up to 5 T
• High field uniformity achieved by a reverse-wind
  outer coil

19
Hall B Toroid

• Purpose
• Momentum analysis of particles with angles
  smaller than 40 degrees
• Size
• 6 m diameter
• Field
• ?BdL 1 - 4 T-m
• Similar to forward part of existing CLAS torus
  magnet
• Cold hub support simplifies design
• Minimizing coil width is a focus

20
Hall C Super High Momentum Spectrometer
2006 SHMS design
D Q3 Q2 Q1 HB
detectors
QQQD design very similar to existing HMS
21
Hall C Horizontal Bend Dipole

• Purpose
• Deflect scattered particles into first quadrupole
• Permits access to smaller scattering angles
• Size
• 60 cm long
• Field
• B0 3 T
• Cold iron magnet

22
Hall C Quadrupoles

• Purpose
• Focus scattered particles into main dipole magnet
• Size
• Q1 is 214 cm long, 40 cm diameter
• Q2, Q3 are 224 cm long, 60 cm diameter
• Field gradients
• 9 T/m (Q1), 13 T/m (Q2, Q3)
• Q2 and Q3
• are identical
• Q1 is a cold iron magnet
• Q2, Q3 are cosine(2q)

23
Hall C Dipole

• Purpose
• Momentum analysis of scattered particles
• Size
• 300 cm long
• Field
• B0 4.7 T
• Cosine(q) magnet

24
Summary of Progress Since Summer 2005 ACD

• Hall B ACD Superconducting magnet projects
• Torus magnet - Optimized coil shape and cold mass
  package, performed quench analysis, force
  analysis/containment, refined concepts for coil
  case, cooling, OOP support
• Solenoid similar list of topics to be addressed
  by end FY06 improved concept by adding
  compensation coil
• Hall C ACD Superconducting magnet projects
• Optimized overall spectrometer configuration
• Refined conceptual design for individual magnets
• Performed stress and force analysis for new Q1
• Performed tolerance analysis resolution vs.
  coil displacements
• Conceptual design of cold masses and force
  restraints
• Hall D ACD Detector projects, Tagger magnet
• Detector integration and interface studies
• Readout plan for barrel calorimeter fibers
• Tagger magnet, hodoscope, and photon beamline
  layout (reviewed 01/2006)
• Global optimization of detection of charged and
  neutral particles
• Conceptual designs are much further advanced,
  fully ready to begin PED

25
SC Magnets FY07 RD Plan

• Test device to measure beam-induced heating for
  horizontal bending magnet
• Design, build, test scale model of cross section
  of horizontal bending magnet
• Mechanical, electrical, thermal, radiation
  testing
• SSC superconducting cable testing following
  required reshaping of conductor

26
ESHQ Integration - Physics

• FY07 activities RD and PED
• Two main thrusts
• Integration of safety into planning and design
• PED work
• Example Superconducting magnet design
• Monitoring of ongoing work on-site
• Several RD efforts will require safety
  monitoring
• Example Hall D drift chamber prototyping in Test
  Lab

27
ESHQ Integration - Physics

• Integration into planning and design effort
• Quarterly safety meetings
• Identified issues from meetings to have followup
• Includes 12 GeV Safety Manager and 12 GeV QA
  Officer
• Internal design and safety reviews of major items
• Safety assessments for selected RD and PED
  activities, e.g.
• Initial and mid-year safety assessments for plans
• Final report for RD projects to include safety
  elements where appropriate, forwarded to safety
  manager.
• Coordination of work with outside institutions
• Vendor visits by engineers will include safety
  coordination

28
ESHQ Integration - Physics

• Integrated Safety Management Technical staff
  safety responsibilities for 12 GeV work in FY07
• Safety considerations in component design
• Pressure vessels, flammables, egress, HV, support
  structures
• Coordination with vendor and collaborator
  institutions
• Writing/reviewing TOSPs/OSPs
• Initial assessment of safety-related issues in
  complete systems
• First-line enforcement for on-site users

29
ESHQ Integration Physics RD

• Safety professional involvement, 12 GeV work in
  FY07

30
ESHQ Integration Physics PED
31
ESHQ Integration Physics PED
32
FY07 RD, PED Resource-loaded Schedule

• Formation of resource-loaded schedule followed a
  recent planning exercise to construct Jefferson
  Lab staffing plan for FY07
• Approximately 25 FTEs required for the year for
  12 GeV Physics
• 12 skill types required
• matrixed to approximately 50 staff members at
  Jefferson Lab
• Incorporates ESHQ milestones and activities
• Incorporates elements of Risk Mitigation Plan

33
FY07 RD, PED Resource-loaded Schedule
34
FY07 RD, PED Resource-loaded Schedule
35
Risk Assessment - Physics

• Assessment of Project Risk is required by the DOE
  PM Order
• Methodology
• technical, schedule, cost risks considered
  separately
• probability of occurrence and impact of problems
  are both taken into account
• Result of the assessment
• Hall B detectors (Silicon Vertex Tracker) a
  Moderate Risk
• Superconducting magnets (Halls B and C) a
  Moderate Risk
• All other Level 3 WBS elements are Low Risk
• All moderate risk items must have a Risk
  Mitigation Plan

36
Risk Mitigation Plans SC Magnets
1) Perform RD and optimization studies to reduce
risks where appropriate. 2) Thorough review of
design. 3) Vendor selection to emphasize
previous successful projects of a similar nature.
4) Specification of contract milestones to
provide appropriately staged testing and adequate
schedule float to recover from problems
identified in early stage. 5) Close monitoring
and coordination of vendor work with laboratory
engineering representatives, including on-site
visits of the vendor. 6) Provision of adequate
schedule float in commissioning stage to address
problems discovered during commissioning. 7)
Maintain core staff at laboratory with relevant
experience to recover from problems
superconducting magnet engineering, cryogenic
engineering, vacuum and cryogenic fabrication and
repair.
37
Summary

• Much progress on conceptual design and RD thus
  far
• Magnet concepts are ready for an independent
  review now, before Project Engineering and Design
  begins
• Looking forward to a productive and interesting
  review of our superconducting magnets!

38
12 GeV Upgrade Project Developments

• Critical Decision1 Approval, February 2006
• TPC range of 225M to 300M
• Expectation 8-10 through non-DOE contributions
• DOE Laboratory Plan FY 2007 2011, March 2006
• Prominent place for 12 GeV Upgrade
• Available budget envelope for Construction funds
  required delay of 12 GeV from FY08 to FY09
• Funding profile updated April 2006
• Detailed project schedule under development

39
12 GeV Upgrade Cost
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST (TEC) DISTRIBUTION
40
12 GeV Upgrade Critical Decision Schedule
Latest funding profile in April 2006 does not
include Long Lead Construction Items
41
Comparison of Major Costs Halls D, B, and C
Hall C
Hall D
Hall B
42
Risk Assessment - Physics

• An update of the 2005 risk assessment was
  performed
• Methodology as specified in Risk Assessment
  Document
• Likelihood as Low, Moderate, High
• Impact/consequence as Low, Moderate, High

• Result of the updated assessment
• Some changes of Impacts, but no overall risk
  rating changes in Experimental Equipment/Physics
• Hall B detectors (Silicon Vertex Tracker) a
  Moderate Risk
• Superconducting magnets (Halls B and C) a
  Moderate Risk
• All other Level 3 WBS elements are Low Risk