XX November 2017 Analysis of Alternatives Process March 2016 Letter from S Peggs to E Colby T Lavine M Procario 11817 Paul Derwent ICR Analysis of Alternatives 2 Alternative ID: 744043
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Paul Derwent PIP-II ICR" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
Paul DerwentPIP-II ICRXX November 2017
Analysis of AlternativesSlide2
Process:March 2016: Letter from S. Peggs to E. Colby, T. Lavine
, M.
Procario
11/8/17
Paul Derwent | ICR Analysis of Alternatives
2Slide3
Alternative 1 (800-MeV SC Linac, CW-compatible; Reference Design): 800-MeV superconducting linac, constructed of CW-capable components, operated initially in pulsed mode at an average beam current (during the pulse) of 2 mA, located on the Tevatron infield, accompanied by necessary modifications to the existing Booster/Recycler/Main Injector accelerators.
Alternative 2 (800-MeV SC Linac, pulsed, higher current)
: 800-MeV superconducting Linac, optimized for low-duty factor pulsed operations, at an average beam current of 5 mA, located on the Tevatron infield, accompanied by necessary modifications to the existing Booster/Recycler/Main Injector accelerators.
11/8/17
Paul Derwent | ICR Analysis of Alternatives
3Slide4
Alternative 3 (Hybrid; Relocated 400-MeV NC Linac, add 400-MeV SC Linac): 800-MeV linac constructed by adding a 400-MeV superconducting linac, optimized for low-duty factor pulsed operations, at an average beam current of 20 mA, to the existing but relocated 400-MeV Linac, accompanied by necessary modifications to the existing Booster/Recycler/Main Injector accelerators.
Alternative 4: (Relocated 400-MeV NC Linac, add 400-MeV NC Linac)
: 800-MeV linac constructed by adding a 400-MeV normal-conducting linac, optimized for
low-duty
factor pulsed operations, at an average beam current of 20 mA, to the existing but relocated 400-MeV Linac, accompanied by necessary modifications to the existing Booster/Recycler/Main Injector accelerators.
11/8/17
Paul Derwent | ICR Analysis of Alternatives
4Slide5
Evaluation CriteriaWere defined by OHEP, for consideration by the project team and the review team
11/8/17
Paul Derwent | ICR Analysis of Alternatives
5Slide6
Review CommitteeAn independent OHEP review committee was formedAuthor / Referee model
No direct interaction with committee
11/8/17
Paul Derwent | ICR Analysis of Alternatives
6Slide7
Project Team ReportProject Team prepared a reportDescribed the 4 alternatives analyzedPrepared cost estimates and life cycle costs
Described the performance with respect to the 10 criteria
Distributed to the review committee and had two rounds of interaction
Questions and responses
Neither project nor committee made a recommendation
“The panel found that the AoA document provides a solid basis for making an alternative selection”
Final report is in pip2-docdb #10711/8/17
Paul Derwent | ICR Analysis of Alternatives
7Slide8
11/8/17Paul Derwent | ICR Analysis of Alternatives
8
Alternative/Criterion
Reference Design
Pulsed SC Linac
NC/SC Pulsed Linac
NC Pulsed Linac
Comments
Beam Power to LBNF (MW)
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
For MI operations at 120 GeV
Accelerator Complex Reliability (Risk)
Low
Low
Low
Low
Alternatives 3 and 4 ranked low based on PIP investments.
Beam Power to 8-GeV Program (kW)
80
80
80
80
For MI operations at 120 GeV
Upgrade Mu2e 100 kW
Y
Y
N
N
For > factor two increase in beam power and accelerator upgrade <$100M
Platform for LBNF > 2 MW
Y
Y
Y
Y
Requires Booster replacement in all alternatives. Alternatives 3 and 4 have less flexibility, and more technical risk, in achieving >2 MW
Platform for high power, high duty factor
Y
Y
N
N
For accelerator upgrades <$100M
Interruption to operations
Minimal
Minimal
Minimal*
Minimal*
*Assuming the PIP-II shutdown corresponds to the LBNF shutdown. Alternatives 1 and 2 have the potential for an additional 7 months of operations to SBN during nights and/or weekends.
Technical Risk
Moderate
Low
Low
Low
Primary risk in Alternative 1 is resonance control. Otherwise Alternatives 3 and 4 have less inherent risk, but equalized risk at the completion of R&D.
Potential International Contributions
Yes
Yes
No
No
Pursuit of Alternative 2 would forfeit the Indian in-kind contribution of rf sources. No contributions in Alternatives 3 and 4.
Cost to DOE (construction point estimate)
$516
$628
$602
$502
Point estimate, FY2020 $M. The cost risk associated with Indian deliverables that is not incorporated into Alternatives 1 and 2 .
Cost to DOE (annual operating)
$9
$8
$9
$7
Linac only, FY2025 $MSlide9
AoA Best PracticesOHEP reviewed the
AoA
process with respect to GAO Best Practices (Appendix 1 of GAO-16-22 October 2015)
Results summarized in Best Practices document under development
11/8/17
Paul Derwent | ICR Analysis of Alternatives
9Slide10
11/8/17
Paul Derwent | ICR Analysis of Alternatives
10
Alternative SelectionSlide11
11/8/17
Paul Derwent | ICR Analysis of Alternatives
11
Alternative Selection