ilc engineering design phase - status & plans

Date Event Global Design Effort 1

ILC Engineering Design Phase - Status & Plans

Mike Harrison

GDE/BNL

Global Design Effort 2

Reference Design Report

The draft report and associated cost estimate was presented to ICFA in Beijing

– 11km SC linacs operating at 31.5 MV/m for 500 GeV– Centralized injector

• Circular damping rings for electrons and positrons• Undulator-based positron source

– Single IR with 14 mrad crossing angle– Dual tunnel configuration for safety and availability


Reference Design Cost Estimate

SummaryRDR “Value” Costs

Total Value Cost (FY07)4.80 B ILC Units Shared

+1.82 B Units Site Specific

+14.1 K person-years

(“explicit” labor = 24.0 M person-hrs @ 1,700 hrs/yr)

1 ILC Unit = $ 1 (2007)

The Value costs have been reviewed 3 times:

• 3 day “internal review” in Dec 06

• ILCSC MAC review in Jan 07• International Cost review in

Orsay, Paris May 07

Σ Value = 6.62 B ILC Units

• The technical design has been reviewed by the MAC

• Also at the DOE ART review to a certain extent

The RDR & cost estimate + associated technical reviews has been formally presented to FALC 3 days ago (Rome) and will be presented to ICFA in August (Korea - Lepton Photon conference). This will end this phase of the project.


ILC Engineering Design Phase

• We are at an evident change point in the ILC Project.

– Two years after the formal formation of the GDE, – the recent completion of the draft Reference Design Report

(RDR) marks a major milestone in this global effort.

• The GDE is now in the process of restructuring itself and making plans for the engineering design phase, leading to the completion of the ILC Engineering Design Report (EDR) in 2010.

Engineering Design phase will include:

1. Basic R&D to demonstrate that all components can be engineered

2. R&D into alternative solutions to mitigate remaining risk. 3. An overall design to allow machine construction to start

within 3 years, 4. selection between high tech options must be made to allow

industrialization efforts. 5. A comprehensive value-engineering exercise must be

conducted.6. A complete value cost estimate for the machine must be

provided, including a funding profile consistent with the project schedule.

7. A project execution plan must be produced, including a realistic schedule.

8. Designs for facilities shared between different “area systems”, and for site-specific infrastructure. The designs must include the level of detail needed for regions to estimate the cost to host

9. All necessary information must be provided to regions to evaluate project technical and financial risks in support of a bid to host.


High Priority – Controlling COST

• fundamental containment of the current RDR Value estimate (no cost creep).

• potential cost-reduction via engineering – clearly identified in the RDR (do we really need two

tunnels ?).

• Together with the risk-mitigating/cost reducing prioritised R&D program

n.b. the Reference design costs were reduced by ~25% from the original numbers


Industrialization

• Second focus: increasing direct involvement of industries

• Preparation for mass production

– is a critical issue for key technologies, – understanding how individual countries can contribute in-

kind

• This must be achieved on a truly worldwide basis, – Intend to follow free-market– including seeking out and developing potential (new)

industrial basesFor example India


RDR provides guidance

• The RDR provides a design and a value estimate that is parametric in nature, – allows us to identify the cost drivers and the technical

risks; – critical in prioritizing both engineering and R&D,

• primary cost drivers: – SCRF linac technology – CFS, – ~70% of the ILC value estimate.

• These two will be a major focus during the EDR


Prioritization for the EDR

• Based on:– Technical risk mitigation– Cost risk mitigation– Cost reduction– Preparation

• Not in the above order:– Quantitative evaluation possible based on RDR Value

estimate and plan

• Mechanism?– Define proposed Work Packages,– Build Work Breakdown Structure– Secure institutional/funding agency consensus

Reference design riskassessment


Getting Started on the EDR:

• Re-organize ourselves toward the EDR– Project management-based structure, – Definition, scope and resources

• Examine RDR & plan EDR a starting point– Multi-day technical meetings planned– Internally controlled process

• Continue the design work and technical R&D


EDR Objectives – Main Linac Technology:

• Complete the critical R&D as identified by the R & D Board task forces.

• Coordinate/monitor industrialization efforts

• Identify a plan for consolidating design work

• Identify ways in which the maximum benefit can be obtained from the European XFEL project– Formally launched June 5, 2007


EDR Objectives: Conventional Facilities & Siting (CFS)

• CF/S has been identified as an RDR cost driver;– expected to yield cost reduction through “value”

engineering.• Complicated via site/regional dependencies:

– Need to delineate global/generic engineering and site/region-specific engineering;

– Both categories to be clearly identified in WBS.• Primary EDR Goals:

– iteration of CF/S requirements with accelerator designers/engineers (‘value engineering’);

– Detailed evaluation of alternative solutions (e.g. shallow site);

– Prepare critical information for specific site selection / development;

• Lack of an agreed-upon single site is a significant problem


EDR Objectives: Accelerator Systems

• Define performance-driven specifications for the accelerator components and infrastructure

• Iterate cost/performance trade-offs – CF/S will be a focus;

• Demonstrate that the accelerator design fulfills the required performance goals in a cost-effective way;– by demonstration via critical R&D;– by simulation;

• Maintain a risk register, and develop alterative fall-back solutions.


Restructuring the GDE

• Project Management for the EDR Phase• Devised along functional lines

– (instead of institutional or regional…)– Many WP’s will have strong institutional center

• Relationship between Project and Institutes through a series of ‘Memoranda’

• Defines a Work Package for a given Institution

• we must be extremely careful to develop and maintain inter-regional consensus/balance


ILC Project Management

• Global focus• Role of the project managers in relation to the regional

directors:

• Project Managers are responsible for– Leading the worldwide technical development effort– Setting technical direction and executing the project

toward realization of the ILC

• Regional Directors are responsible for – Promoting, seeking funding and authorization of the

international cooperative program.


ILC Project Management as a proposal for the organization toward EDR

V-070710

ILC Council (ILCSC)Funding Agencies and Institutions

Executive CommitteeDirector, Reg. Directors, Accelerator Experts, PMs

Tech. Sys.

A. Yamamoto

Global Sys.

M. Ross

Accel. Sysy

N. Walker

Asiay

M. Nozaki

US

M. Harrison

Europe

B. Foster

Technical Leadership (by Project Managers)

- Engineering Design and R&D

Regional Leadership (by Regional Directors)

- Funding and Authorization

Global Design Effort

Institution InstitutionInstitution Instit. ….Instit. ….

Director’s Office Director: B. Barish

assisted by Project Managers: M. Ross*, N. Walker, A. Yamamoto

Many Tasks

P. M. Officey

N. Walker

Board- Accelerator Advisory - RD sub-panel - Design & Industr. SubP.


EDR Project Management


Managing a non-centrally funded project:

• green indicates a commitment:– institute will deliver

• MoUs facilitate connection:– Project Management (authority and responsibility) and institutions

(funding and resources).

• The ‘C’ coordinating role in a WP – Each WP has only one coordinator.

WP 1.1 WP 1.2 WP 1.3 WP 1… WP 2.1 WP 2.2 WP 2.3 WP 2… WP 3.1 WP 3.2 WP 3.3 WP 3…

Institute A C

Institute B C C

Institute C C C

Institute D C C

Institute E C C

… C

Institute T C

Institute U

Institute V C

Level-3 System Manager 2 Level-3 System Manager 3

Project Managers

Agency I

Agency II

Agency III

Level-3 System Manager 1MoUs

Funding & Resources

technical


Project ManagerOffice

BDS area leaders

BDS WP 1 BDS WP 2 BDS WP N

MDI panel & detectorliaison

BDS system engineering office

Sub WP 1-1

Sub WP 1-N

Beam Delivery System Level 3


BDS area.

ATF2 construction, commissioning & operation

Accelerator and physics requirements and design integration

Interaction Region and IR integration

BDS magnet & PS

BDS instrumentation

Crab cavity system.

Beam Dump system

Collimation system

BDS Vacuum system

TENTATIVE !

Beam Delivery System Work Packages


Interaction Region and IR integration

IR system engineering and integration

IR cryogenics

IR magnet prototype

IR magnet stability study

IR shielding design

Detector moving system design

IR magnet design & engineering

Structure of subwork-packages

Beam Delivery System (sub) Work Packages


Memoranda of Understanding

• Until we have central funding, the GDE must continue to seek its resources indirectly via the institutes forming the collaboration.

• Responsibilities for delivering a WP must be formally agreed upon between the GDE Project Management and the corresponding institute via MoU.

• The institutes are then responsible for obtaining the necessary resources for the task from their funding sources (agencies).

• The process by which the WPs are defined, and the allocation of institutes to carry out those WPs through MoUs, must be an open and transparent process allowing all interested parties to make a proposal to carry out the work and to understand and accept the criteria used in decision making.


Resources

• SCRF ‘Centers of Excellence’ in each region

• KEK, FNAL/ANL/JLAB, DESY

– Infrastructure and key staff ready for EDR

– Supports R & D and development of industry

• ILC Design and Engineering expertise in each region

– CERN has unique expertise in large scale civil engineering, mass production of cryogenic components and cryogenic systems


FALCILCSC

2007/08 – EDR Meeting Schedule

DESY ILC2007PM Team announcement

05/07 10/07 03/08 06/08

EDR ‘Kick Off’ Meetings

FNAL GDEmeeting

Tohoku GDE meeting

EU GDE meeting (Dubna ?)

EDR R & D Meetings


2007/08 EDR Milestones

• May – Project Managers announced:– Akira Yamamoto (KEK)– Marc Ross (Fermilab) chair– Nick Walker (DESY)

• Aug. – Korea ILCSC PM submission• Aug. to Oct. – EDR Kick Off Meetings• Oct – DRAFT Work Packages / WBS

– Fermilab ILC GDE meeting

• Jan. to Feb. 08 – EDR R & D Meetings• March 2008 – Tohoku ILC Meeting

– EDR organization in place (WBS, MoU drafts)


Conclusions

• GDE transition from reference design phase to the engineering design phase is underway

• The goal is to produce a design by 2010 which can be used for project approval, site selection and updated cost estimates. Consistent with construction start ~ 3 years later

• Engineering Design phase will benefit from:– Strong, steady support from funding agencies– Institutional commitment to further develop collaborations– A commitment to unify and strengthen governance

ilc engineering design phase - status & plans

Documents

engineering design phasewe

overall design

complete value cost

reference design costs

associated cost estimate

cost creep

ilc project

international cost review