20-nov-06 falc - kek global design effort 1 gde report barry barish caltech / gde 20-nov-06 rdr...

20-Nov-06 FALC - KEK Global Design Effort 1

GDE Report

Barry Barish

Caltech / GDE

20-Nov-06RDR Design Freeze


Outline

• Agenda Items– Progress towards the RDR– Provisional cost estimates– Discussion on the review process of the RDR– Site aspects of RDR

• Additional Items– GDE Coordination of Global R&D Program– Common Fund – Request for FY07


Progress toward RDR


Baseline to a RDR

Jan July Dec 2006

Freeze ConfigurationOrganize for RDR

Bangalore

Review Design/Cost Methodology

Review InitialDesign / Cost Review Final

Design / CostRDR Document

Design and Costing PreliminaryRDR

Released

Frascati Vancouver Valencia


System July 18, 2006 - Cost Estimates received for Regionaldescription common e- e+ DR RTML ML BDS Exp Am Asia Eure- Source √e+ Source √DR √RTML √Main LinacBDS √Com, Op, ReliabControl System √ √ √ √ √ √ √Cryogenics √ √ √ * √ √ √ *Convent. Facilities √ √ √ √ √ √ √ * √ √ √ √Installation √ √ √ √ √ √ √Instrumentation √ √ √ √ √ √ √Cavities √ √ √Cryomodules √ √ √ √ √ √ √RF √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √Magnets & PS √ * √ *Dumps & Collim √ √ √ √ √Vacuum √ √ √ √ √ √Accel Phys

√ = complete, √ * = almost complete, missing something minor

Vancouver Cost Data


ILC Estimate by Area Systems -17july06

Main Linac DRs Beam Deliv RTML e+ Source Exp. Halls e- Source General

Costs by Area System


ILC Estimate by Technical & Global Systems - 22july06

Conventional Facilities

Dumps & Collimators

CM & Cavities

Instrumentation

RF

Vacuum

Installation

Magnets

Cryogenics

Controls

Costs by Technical & Global System


Optimizing Cost to Performance

RDR MB CCB

214mr IRs supported central injectors supported Removal of service tunnel rejected

conventional e+ source rejected

RF unit modifications (24 26 cav/klys) supported submitted

reduced RF in DR (6 9mm z) supported in prep

DR race-track lattice (CFS) supported in prep

reduced static cryo overhead supported in prep

removal linac RF overhead supported in prep

single-stage bunch compressor rejected

e- source: common pre-accelerator supported in prep


Vancouver Costs for BDS

• Cost drivers– CF&S– Magnet

system– Vacuum

system– Installation– Dumps &

Collimators

Total Cost

Additional costs for IR20 and IR2


2/20 mrad 14/14 mrad

• Motivation – Reduce costs

• 2 mrad beam line expensive, risky, especially extraction line• Common collider hall

– Advantages• Improved radiation conditions in the extraction lines• Better performance of downstream diagnostics• Easier design and operation of extraction optics and magnets• Reduced back scattering from extraction line elements

– Disadvantages• Impact on physics (appears minor at present). • Simpler incoming beam optics

• R&D on small crossing angles will continue as alternative


On-surface Detector Assembly• Vancouver WBS considered the underground halls

sized at 32m (W) x 72m (L) each to allow underground assembly of the largest considered detector.

• Conventional Facilities Schedule gives detector hall is ready for detector assembly 5 yrs from project start– If so, cannot fit our goal of “7years until first beam” and

“8years until physics run”

• Surface assembly allows to save 2-2.5 years and allows to fit into this goal– The collider hall size may be smaller (~40-50%) in this

case – A building on surface is needed, but savings may be

still substantial

• Optimization needs to be done


CMS assembly approach• Assembled on the surface in parallel with underground work• Allows pre-commissioning before lowering• Lowering using dedicated heavy lifting equipment• Potential for big time saving• Reduce size of underground hall required

On-surface assembly


Cost details of new 14/14 baseline

Total cost

1.000

0.3680.316 0.316

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

Total Common add for IR A add for IR B

a.u.

Updates from CF&SMagnets to be included

Should we go to a single IR and push

pull system and save 30% of BCD costs?


Push-Pull Evaluation

• Initiated by GDE & WWS at the end of September• Detailed list of questions to be studied developed:

• Large group of accelerator and detector colleagues, from ILC and other projects, is participating in design and discussion of these question

• The task force of detector experts was formed to contribute to detailed evaluation of the whole set of technical issues

http://www-project.slac.stanford.edu/ilc/acceldev/beamdelivery/rdr/docs/push-pull/


Cost Reductions Logged

Our efforts at Valencia identified another 4.91%!

05

10

152025

initia

l

BDS

14/1

4 + m

uon

1 e+ r

ing

ML RF

DR 9m

m +

e+ so

urce

RTML

CF&S

Sha

fts+

Centrariz

ed D

R

BDS

1IR

Cooli

ng+M

isc

Energy

?

Lumino

sity?

%

Accumulated Cost Savings Each Cost Savings


ILC Documents

• Several reports for different audiences

• Brochure – non-technical audiences, ready now• “Quantum Universe” level booklet ~30 pages

• Executive Summary ~ 30 pages • Physics motivation, accelerator and detectors

• RDR Report ~ 300 pages• high level description of the accelerator

• DCR Report ~ 250 pages• physics and detectors

•


RDR Report

• RDR is a high level description of the accelerator, CFS, sites and costs

• A snapshot of what we propose to build– not a history of R&D, design evolution, and

alternatives

• Editors: – Nan Phinney (SLAC), Nobu Toge (KEK), Nick Walker

(DESY)

• Original schedule was complete draft now, but has been pushed back because of cost iterations


Reviewing RDR & Costs


Plans until Beijing (Feb. '07)

November December January February

Valencia

Further cost consolidationCCR preparation & submission

Cost & Design Freeze 30/11

Prepare for Full Cost Review

SLAC Cost Review 14-16/12

MAC 10-12/01/07

Final cost corrections and documentation

Agency cost briefings

Beijing: RDR draft published

RDR final editing

RDR prepare 1st drafts

2006 2007


Charge for MAC Review

• On Wednesday 10, Thursday 11 and Friday 12 (until noon) January 2007, there will be an ILC MAC meeting at the Cockcroft Institute, Daresbury, UK. The major item for the meeting is the ILC cost and overall design, with specific MAC tasks:

– Review the soundness of the overall RDR concept, identify any areas of concern, note what R&D is still needed, and comment on whether the performance parameters can be met.

– Review the cost methodology and identify any areas of concern.

• This will be the first occasion at which costs will be presented outside of the GDE.


What Happens after Beijing?

• Public Release of Draft RDR and Preliminary Costing at Beijing– Cost Reviews, etc– Finalize RDR by Summer 2007?

• Enter into Engineering Design Phase– Planning underway internally– Design will evolve through value engineering

and R&D program– General Goal is to have Construction Proposal

ready by 2010


Proposed RDR Review Process


Presentation Strategy• The GDE is purposefully constituted as a tri-regional

design team whose goal is to produce by 2009 a Technical Design Report (TDR) which will contain a detailed, engineering-based design and cost for the ILC.

• The initial step towards the TDR was to establish a Reference Design Report (RDR) which will define a self-consistent set of ILC design parameters and associated implementation scope. The RDR also contains an initial estimate of cost at the 20% level which is mostly parametric in nature. This initial cost estimate is at sufficient detail to permit a) trend analysis for cost reduction/optimization and b) give guidance for the R&D and industrialization that must accompany the engineering design process of the TDR.


Cost Review Guideline• An international team should be convened prior to completion of

the RDR to review those aspects of the RDR cost estimate that strongly influence the TDR. Given the intermediate nature of the RDR estimate as discussed above, it would seem premature to review in detail every aspect of an ILC cost estimate. Rather this review team should:– review cost trends and relative costs of sub-systems as

they relate to potential scope changes to be incorporated in the TDR

– review cost trends and relative costs of sub-systems and comment on their relevance to the R&D program needed to complete the TDR

– review the methodology used in the estimate to ensure that it is appropriate for establishing an accurate TDR cost assessment. Evaluate that the method and format of estimation can serve the needs of regional authorities as they develop plans for potential involvement as partners in the ILC


Siting Aspects of RDR&

Candidate Sites


Site Aspects of RDR

• Three Samples Sites– ILC Conventional Facilities Group: Jean-Luc Baldy (CERN), Vic

Kuchler (Fermilab) and Atsushi Enomoto (KEK) + Support Group

– Sample Site Analysis - Europe (CERN); Japan (?); US (Fermilab) also, TESLA for reference and Russia unsolicited

– Conventional Facilities are expensive! Make narrow definition for “host costs” - goal ~ 25% of total.


ILC Estimate by Technical & Global Systems - 22july06

Conventional Facilities

Dumps & Collimators

CM & Cavities

Instrumentation

RF

Vacuum

Installation

Magnets

Cryogenics

Controls

Costs by Technical & Global System


Site Aspects of RDR

• Three Samples Sites– ILC Conventional Facilities Group: Jean-Luc Baldy (CERN), Vic

Kuchler (Fermilab) and Atsushi Enomoto (KEK) + Support Group

– Sample Site Analysis - Europe (CERN); Japan (?); US (Fermilab) also, TESLA for reference and Russia unsolicited

– Conventional Facilities are expensive! Make narrow definition for “host costs” - goal ~ 25% of total.

• Costing Regional – Best estimates in “own” system of costing. They are close to equal, meaning the RDR siting chapter can concentrate on requirements, technical features, cost drivers, safety issues, other issues etc.

• Need “true” candidate sites within ~ 1-2 years for realistic engineering design. How do we solicit candidate sites


CoordinatingGlobal R&D


The ‘S’ R&D Task Forces

S0High-Gradient Cavities

S1High-Gradient Cryomodule

S2Test Linac

S3Damping Ring

S4Beam Delivery

S5…Sn

To address priority R&D items, RDB has convened several ‘task forces’.

S0-S3 will report on Friday AM GDE plenary


The ‘S’ R&D Task Forces

• Addresses current ‘poor’ yield for EP cavities

• Primary goal: establish parameters for routinely producing 35 MV/m EP’d cavities– required 80% yield

S0High-Gradient Cavities

S1High-Gradient Cryomodule

S2Test Linac

S3Damping Ring

S4Beam Delivery

S5…SnH. Hayano, T. Higo, L. Lilje, J. Mammosser, H. Padamsee, M. Ross, K. Saito


Common Fund

Status and FY07 Request


FALC Report – May 06


FY06 FY07 FY08

Max, Mora, M&S, Travel, Web $377 $377 $377

Costing Support - 3 FTE $150 $300

EDMS Support - 3 FTE $150 $300

Meeting Support $50 $50

Unsupported Travel (MAC, etc) $50 $50

Project Manager $100 $200

Communications $100 $100

Detector Review (new – extra) $50 $50

TOTAL Central Support Needed $377 $1,027 $1,427

Can reduce by any offset support from labs

DESY EDMS 2FTE ($100) ($200)

TOTAL - Common Fund $377 $927 $1,250

Projected Budgets


Summary

• Status of Costing– First costing available at Vancouver (July)– Cost to performance optimization

• Status & Plans for design modifications– Several proposals accepted and some rejected– Changes having physics impact (Valencia)– Complete RDR by Beijing Meetings

• Global planning for critical R&D beginning– Formation of ‘S’ task forces


Final Discussion Points

• Discussion Items – The MAC Review in January? Preview of RDR

and Costs or list of items?– Informing ILCSC (Feb 4?) – Informing FALC ?– Strategy for Release – ICFA Feb– International Cost Review (FALC Sponsored?)

• How are we going to approach getting candidate sites? Who solicits?

• Common Fund Request

20-nov-06 falc - kek global design effort 1 gde report barry barish caltech / gde 20-nov-06 rdr...

Documents

rdr slide

rdr design freeze slide

technical global system

fy07 slide

ir2 slide

alternative slide

vancouver cost data

area system slide