December 4, 2006

**Estimated Cost to Mount E906**

David Christian, Craig Moore, Richard Coleman, Charles Brown, Leon
Beverly, Douglas Jensen, Jim Kilmer, Bob DeMaat, Hogan Nguyen, Keith
Schuh, and Peter Cooper

# 

At its October 2006 meeting, the PAC reaffirmed the approval of E906.
PPD, AD, and CD were asked to develop a plan for how best to mount E906
so that credible estimates can be made of the resources required. This
report is a response to that request. We were asked to consider both
MWest in the Meson Detector Building and the old KTeV hall (NM4) as
possible locations for E906.

We identified a small number of cost drivers and attempted to make
detailed estimates for each. These cost drivers are:

-   Beam line.

-   Analysis magnets.

-   Cryogenics (for the liquid targets).

In addition, we estimated the cost and effort required for a number of
items expected to be less expensive. These included:

-   Detector gas system.

-   Services (water and electrical) for analysis magnets.

-   Magnetic field mapping.

-   Shielding.

-   Services for on-detector and near-detector electronics.

-   Area preparation.

Finally, we investigated other items at a level of detail sufficient to
determine that they will not require significant expenditure of Fermilab
funds or effort. These include:

-   Detector refurbishment.

-   Data acquisition electronics, software, and computing.

The total cost (without contingency) to mount the experiment in NM4 is
estimated to be \$1.7M, of which \$1M is M&S and \$0.7M is Fermilab
labor. The cost to mount the experiment in MWest has a larger
uncertainty, depending on the cost of the beam line, and is estimated to
lie in the range \$1.9M to \$2.4M (also without contingency). These
estimates are summarized in Tables 1 and 2 and explained in the text
below. The estimates themselves can be found in the EPP document
database. A list of the relevant documents is presented in Appendix A.

### 

  ---------------------------- ----------------------- ---------------------- ------------------------- ----------------------
                               **[NM4]{.underline}**                          **[Mwest]{.underline}**   

                               **[M&S]{.underline}**   **[FNAL                **[M&S]{.underline}**     **[FNAL
                                                       Labor]{.underline}**                             Labor]{.underline}**

  Analysis Magnets             \$90,444                \$48,576               \$160,883                 \$69,976

  Cryogenics (including new    \$181,500               \$165,916              \$181,500                 \$165,916
  targets)                                                                                              

  Gas system                   \$125,000               \$145,040              \$175,000                 \$145,040

  Services for analysis        \$78,900                                       \$115,000                 
  magnets                                                                                               

  Magnetic field mapping       \$22,000                                       \$22,000                  

  Shielding                    \$50,000                                       \$90,000                  

  Services for on-detector &   \$35,000                                       \$40,000                  
  near-detector electronics                                                                             

  Area preparation             \$52,050                \$65,850               \$50,000                  

  Detector refurbishment       \$10,000                \$13,920               \$10,000                  \$13,920

  PREP electronics             \$20,000                \$20,160               \$20,000                  \$20,160

  **Total**                    **\$664,894**           **\$459,462**          **\$864,383**             **\$415,012**
  ---------------------------- ----------------------- ---------------------- ------------------------- ----------------------

Table 1: Detector-related cost estimates. These estimates do not include
contingency or G&A.

  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
                          **[M&S]{.underline}**   **[FNAL
                                                  Labor]{.underline}**

  Mechanical              \$255,750               \$164,520

  Electrical              \$82,000                \$81,200

  **Total**               **\$337,750**           **\$245,720**
  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------

Table 2: Costs for beam line to NM4. These estimates do not include
contingency or G&A.

### Beam line cost estimates:

*[Beam to NM4]{.underline}*

A great deal of work was done on the design of beam lines to transport
high intensity charged beams to NM4 in the context of planning for the
Kaons At the Main Injector (KAMI) program. For this exercise, an
especially simple solution was chosen and a detailed estimate was made
of the cost and effort required to reconfigure switchyard and the
upstream Neutrino area enclosures. Most of this work is mechanical in
nature and was estimated by David Augustine, with help from Joel Misek
and a number of other members of the AD Mechanical Support Department.
The estimated "electrical" labor includes 13 weeks for a two-person
technician crew to reestablish the readout of beam line instrumentation.
This part of the estimate has not yet been reviewed by the AD
Instrumentation group.

*[Beam to MWest]{.underline}*

Work has also been done in the past to determine how best to transport
120 GeV beams to Meson. The 120 GeV proton beam is larger than the 800
GeV beam for which the existing upstream Meson beam line was designed.
As a result, there are substantial beam losses between switchyard and
the Meson target train. These losses do not constitute a serious hazard
as long as the beam intensity is low, but at the intensity required for
E906, would probably result in an unacceptable level of activation
inside the beam enclosures. An extensive reconfiguration of the Meson
beam lines was originally envisioned as part of the "Switchyard 120"
project; however this plan was dropped from the project in order to save
money. A second lattice[^1] was proposed with the beam requirements of
E906 in mind. This design was intended to reduce the losses even more
than would have been the case for the unimplemented SY120 design. As in
the original design, focusing magnets would be added in the upstream end
of Meson, and the Meson septa and Lambertson magnets moved downstream to
enclosure M01. This would not result in enough separation between the
different beams to get more than one beam through the Meson train. As
noted in the SY120 Conceptual Design Report, the train would have to be
modified (which would be very expensive) or moved out of the beam line.
Since the train is the only location in Meson suitable for a high
intensity beam dump, this would mean that all of the Meson beams would
likely need to be disabled (and the beam dumped in switchyard) whenever
any of the Meson area users made a controlled access.

A crude estimate of how much it would cost to implement the second
design for the upstream end of Meson was made in June 2005. The
estimated total was \$725k. The bulk of this cost was M&S expense for
rigging, pipefitting, and electrical work. A number of items (and much
of the Fermilab labor) were not included in the estimate, so the total
cost associated with this design is likely to be more than \$1M.

Very recently, AD members of this task force have started to examine a
third alternative for reducing the beam losses in Meson. In this
approach, quadrupole magnets are added to the upstream end of Meson, but
the septa are not moved. It appears that by running the septa at higher
voltage, it may be possible to maintain enough separation between the
beams so that three beams can be transported through the three holes in
the Meson target train, while at the same time the size of the beam
envelope is reduced enough to lower beam losses to an acceptable level.
This design has not yet been fully vetted, but if it is acceptable, the
cost associated with implementing it is expected to be comparable to the
cost of modifying the beam line to NM4, rather than substantially
higher.

### Detector-related cost estimates:

*[Analysis magnets]{.underline}*

E906 requires two analysis magnets. The primary proton beam is dumped at
the upstream end of the first magnet. Hadrons, electrons, and photons
are absorbed in a water cooled copper dump. Most muons are swept out of
the spectrometer by the first magnet. Muons produced at high transverse
momentum to the beam are measured in an open geometry spectrometer
consisting of tracking chambers, a second analysis magnet, and a muon
identifier consisting of plates of steel with more chambers
interspersed.

In the report that some of us prepared before the October PAC meeting,
we stated that pits would need to be dug into the Meson Detector
Building (MDB) floor to accommodate the analysis magnets and that the
installation of the magnets would probably require the rental of a
gantry crane, since both magnets would be built using 30-ton soft iron
blocks recovered from the Nevis cyclotron (and previously used in MEast
for the SM12 and SM3 magnets). We now realize that the beam height can
be increased without increasing the cost of the beam line, so that no
pits are required. We also realize that one could cut the 30-ton iron
blocks into 15-ton pieces and use the 20-ton MDB crane to assemble the
magnets rather than rent a gantry crane. This would also facilitate the
eventual removal of the E906 apparatus. We received a budgetary estimate
from Belding Walbridge (a local rigging company) of \$446k to install
the magnets in MDB on the MWest beam line using their gantry crane. We
also estimated the cost of cutting the iron blocks and hiring riggers to
install the magnets using the MDB crane. This cost was substantially
lower than the Belding quote and is included in Table 1.

If E906 is located in NM4, then the KTeV analysis magnet can be used as
the second spectrometer analysis magnet and only one magnet needs to be
built. For this cost estimate, we assumed that the 30-ton blocks of
steel used for the flux return yoke would have one end cut off to reduce
their weight to 25 tons each[^2]. The NM4 bridge crane could then be
used to install the M1 magnet. The KTeV analysis magnet was designed to
be easily relocated within NM4 and the cost estimate in Table 1 includes
the amount quoted by Belding to move it.

The E906 experimenters have indicated that they plan to decrease the gap
of the M1 magnet to 25 inches. We received a quote of \$33.5k from Dial
Machine Inc. to mill the return yoke pieces to 25 inches. However, if
the gap is reduced, it will be necessary to make extensive modifications
to the magnet pole tips and especially to the water-cooled copper beam
dump. These modifications could cost as much as \$100k. The E906
spokesperson has indicated that they will reconsider the plan to
decrease the gap of M1, and will most likely change their plans to
accommodate the existing gap. We have not included costs associated with
reducing the gap of M1 in our estimates.

*[Cryogenics]{.underline}*

Regardless of where E906 is located, it will require a new stand-alone
cryogenics system, and new flasks and a vacuum enclosure for the liquid
targets. This is because there is no existing cryogenic system in NM4
and the Meson systems are 100% utilized by other activities. The M&S
cost of \$181.5k in Table 1 is dominated by the price of a cryocooler
and controller, but also includes costs to refurbish a table to hold and
remotely manipulate the various targets. The labor includes 28 weeks of
engineering and 55 weeks of technician time.

*[Detector gas system]{.underline}*

Two separate gas systems will be needed for the E906 spectrometer. Some
of the chambers will use a "Fermilab standard" argon-ethane-alcohol gas
mixture. The balance of the chambers will use a "fast gas" mixture of
CF4 and isobutane. Both are flammable gas mixtures and require mixing
systems located in a gas shed as well as flammable gas sensors and a
safety system. The CF4-isobutane system will probably be a closed loop
system designed to recover a large fraction of the CF4. The cost
estimate in Table 1 assumes that essentially none of the existing KTeV
flammable gas system is reusable, and may be considerably reduced if
most of the existing system can be reused. The estimate for NM4 is lower
than the estimate for MWest only because a gas shed exists outside the
KTeV hall, whereas a new gas shed would need to be built if E906 is
located in MWest (there is not enough room in the MTest gas shed to
accommodate E906).

*[Services for analysis magnets]{.underline}*

The cost estimated for services for the analysis magnets in MWest
assumes that existing 500kW power supplies will be used and that they
will be located near the north wall of the MDB, one 500 kW supply for
each magnet. The bulk of the cost is to purchase and install 150 feet of
cable to carry 480V AC from MS4 to the power supplies, and 120 feet of
cable to carry current to and from the magnets. \$22.5k of the total is
to extend LCW headers from the upstream end of MW7 to the E906 magnets
in MWest.

The cost estimated for services for the analysis magnets in NM4 also
assumes that existing 500 kW supplies will be used. The bulk of the cost
is associated with cable to carry DC current from the power supplies in
NS7 to the analysis magnets, and with DC cable to carry current from NM2
to the new quadrupole magnet in NM3.

*[Magnetic field mapping]{.underline}*

If E906 is located in MWest, it will require new field maps of both
analysis magnets. If the experiment is located in NM4, a new map will be
required at least for the M1 magnet. In either case, the "Ziptrack"
magnetic field mapping apparatus will need to be refurbished. The
estimate in Table 1 comes from the MIPP upgrade proposal. No cost is
included for the actual field measurement, since it is expected that
this will be done by the experimenters with minimal assistance from
Fermilab personnel.

*[Shielding]{.underline}*

The shielding estimate in Table 1 is based on the assumption that the
upstream part of E906 will be surrounded by a concrete block "cave" with
6-foot thick walls, 10.5 feet high, with a 3-foot thick roof. A total of
approximately 100 B-blocks and 21 G-blocks are required for a 42 foot
long cave that would cover 90% of the length of the first analysis
magnet. This design concept is based on the shielding that was provided
in MEast for E605 and subsequent experiments.

If E906 is located in MWest, its magnets will be configured to bend
charged particle trajectories up and down. A simulation of the muon
plume downstream of the experiment will be required, and an area
downstream of the experiment will need to be fenced off so people are
not exposed to an unacceptable level of radiation. There is a small
chance that people may need to be excluded from part of MW9 (home to the
AD Cryogenics Department) while beam is being delivered to E906 in
MWest[^3]. In Table 1, we have included \$40k to represent the cost of a
fenced-in enclosure downstream of E906. This is based on 1600 linear
feet of 8-foot high fence. We have not included an estimate of the time
required for the study of the muon plume, but this would largely be done
by physicists whose time is not generally included in this type of cost
estimate.

The NM4 detector hall is underground and was designed for a high
intensity beam. If E906 is located in NM4, its magnets will be
configured to bend horizontally, and both charges of muons escaping the
beam dump will stop in earth.

*[Services for on and near-detector electronics]{.underline}*

We have assumed that ten electronics racks will be required near the
E906 detector. The cost estimated for E906 in NM4 assumes the racks used
for KTeV will need to be relocated. The cost for E906 in MWest is
slightly higher because no AC circuits currently exist where the
experiment would be located (we assume that the existing panels can be
reconfigured to accommodate the new circuits). We have not included any
cost for new racks in MWest, since PREP has a large number of racks
available. The cost of rack protection depends strongly on the type of
system chosen, and on the number of parameters being monitored. The
system installed for the MINOS Near Detector costs approximately \$6k
per rack. A simple fire-protection system without remote monitoring
capability would be much less expensive. We have assumed a cost of
\$2k/rack for this estimate, and included \$20k in Table 1.

*[Area Preparation]{.underline}*

An estimate was made some time ago of the cost required to clean out the
KTeV hall so that it could be used as an area to test cryogenic RF
modules. The cost to prepare NM4 included in Table 1 is based on that
estimate. We have excluded costs associated with removing the vacuum
tanks and the CsI calorimeter as well as 75% of the cost of removing the
infrastructure (raised floor, AC, etc.) in the counting house. Our
assumption is that a beam pipe will be installed inside the existing
vacuum tanks. We further assume that the cost of removing the CsI
crystals and maintaining them in a properly controlled environment will
not be borne by E906. There is no need to remove the electronics room
infrastructure, but we have included 25% of that estimated cost to cover
any required modifications.

The MWest area of the Meson Detector Building is currently unoccupied.
The only area preparation cost that we have included in Table 1 for area
preparation for E906 in MWest is \$50k to outfit a trailer to be used as
a control room. This assumes that an existing trailer can be used (PPD
has one unused trailer at the rail head).

*[Detector refurbishment]{.underline}*

E906 has asked to use the Fermilab wire chamber winding facility in Lab
6 to rewind the chambers of station 1. We expect that the cost
associated with tuning up one of the moth-balled winding machines will
be minimal. It will be necessary to fabricate a flat and level placement
table designed to meet the needs of the E906 station 1 chambers. We have
not included anything in Table 1 for this item since the cost will be
depend on the details of chamber construction. It is also true that the
technician team that used to operate the winding machines was dispersed
long ago. Even assuming that E906 provides the labor to rebuild chambers
at Lab 6, some expert Fermilab training and supervision will be
required. In Table 1, we have included \$10k of M&S and 6 weeks of
Technical Specialist time.

*[Data acquisition electronics, software, and computing]{.underline}*

E906 is an old fashioned experiment with signals stored on cables
awaiting a trigger decision. For either potential site for the
experiment (NM4 or MWest), the trigger and readout electronics will have
to be \"in the pit\" near the detectors. The E906 requirements for
electronics in a counting room will be modest. The experimenters plan to
use a Jefferson Lab DAQ software system programmed by E906 physicists.

The E906 detectors have approximately 10000 readout channels of latched
PWC wires, which they plan to readout with old "Ansley" delay cable, and
preamp, amp-discriminator latch electronics from E866. In addition, the
experiment has 1700 channels of drift chamber wires which they plan to
readout with LeCroy 3377 CAMAC TDCs from PREP, and a few hundred PMTs
which will require PREP LRS 1440 high voltage supplies and ADCs.

The needs of E906 from the PREP pool appear modest and should be easily
satisfied from equipment already in the pool. A small amount of new
electronics will be required for new CAMAC controllers, and perhaps some
communications gear (hubs, routers, etc.). It is not clear that the old
latch electronics is a viable solution. The cables are old and may be
brittle; the electronics is of Columbia-Nevis vintage which in the wine
analogy may now be vinegar. We have suggested to the E906 spokesperson
that they should consider alternatives. We cannot easily fix this
problem with PREP equipment. The division of responsibilities is
beam/infrastructure to FNAL/DOE-HEP and experiment to ANL/DOE-Nuclear
physics so the cost for any replacement is not an impact on Fermilab.

The experiment is in a high rate environment with \>1 MHz/plane of
secondary particles through the chambers. The trigger rate is low \~200
Hz and the events are tiny by today\'s standards (\~1.5 KB). The total
data volume expected is \~1TB over some years of running. Network
bandwidth, data storage and computing requirements are all negligible.

In cost terms, we estimate that CD will need to provide \$20k of new
PREP electronics and three man-months of technical support and
consulting in order to mount E906.

### Appendix A: Links to other documents

*[Detailed Estimates]{.underline}*

Beam line: EPP-doc-291

Analysis magnets: EPP-doc-293

Cryogenics: EPP-doc-285

Detector gas system: EPP-doc-286

Services for analysis magnets: EPP-doc-290

Shielding: EPP-doc-292

Services for on & near-dectector electronics: EPP-doc-290

Area preparation: EPP-doc-262

*[Other Documents]{.underline}*

Quote for rack protection system EPP-doc-284

Meson Beam Task Force Report EPP-doc-222

KTeV analysis magnet EPP-doc-267

Drawing of KTeV Hall (NM3 and NM4) EPP-doc-264

Cost estimate for magnet pits in MWest EPP-doc-245

June 6, 2005 Cost Estimate for SY120 Phase II EPP-doc-224

Optics Upgrade for Switchyard EPP-doc-219

E906 beam intensity requirements EPP-doc-216

SY120 CDR EPP-doc-211

[^1]: FERMILAB-TM-2324-AD, available as EPP-doc-219.

[^2]: A "Poisson" simulation has verified that this will not compromise
    the performance of the magnet.

[^3]: This was the case during E706, which had a primary target close to
    the intended location of the E906 target in MWest.