Beam Delivery Cost Estimate

1
Beam DeliveryCost Estimate

• T. Markiewicz
• 1 June 2000

2
Site layout options due to new Energy
Collimation under discussion
3
Caveats

• Costs are the hardware to deliver beam to one IP
• Conventional facilities provide tunnels for two
  IPs
• Costs estimated in 1999 were never scrutinized
• No tops-down reality checks have been applied
• 2000 acquisition costs are taken from 1999
  numbers scaled by current part counts or lengths
• 2000 EDI model is best estimate of area
  engineer
• Leif Eriksson
• Lattices are new
• low energy operational limit (magnet bore) not
  yet specified
• only one iteration on diagnostic and tuning
  elements
• system not yet mature enough for a value
  engineering optimization

4
Technical Changes Relative to 1999

• NOT included in cost estimate
• Magnet Stringing
• All magnets in same geographic area that are of
  the same type and have the same pole-tip field
  are strung
• ADDITIONAL (BEND) stringing possible once
  engineering model allows for different coil
  windings in the same magnet core.
• Trim Supplies Added
• to individual QUADS in a stringI
• to contiguous BLOCKS of BENDS separated from
  other blocks by a quad or sext
• Tunnel Electronic Enclosures
• when permissible need radiation estimates
• Included in current cost estimate
• Stainless Steel Vacuum System
• BUT placement rules have not changed to reflect
  new apertures

5
Lattice Length Changes (m)
6
Parts Counts by Family (One IR Only)
7
EDI Methodology

• Either
• Estimate Standing Army needed for given task for
  period given by straw-man schedule. Examples
• Systems Engineering 7 people, 9
  years
• Conceptual Design 41 people, 2 years
• Vacuum Sustaining Engineering 1 person, 6
  years
• Make grounds up estimate for a hardware system
  and slice it into WBS buckets using a formula.
  Ex Magnet EDI 18.5M
• RD 10
• Design 50
• Sustaining Engineering 15
• Assess MS for computers, travel,
  5k/person/year

8
Acquisition Methodology

• Magnets Systems Magnets, PS, Cables, BPMs,
  Supports, Movers
• Grounds up estimates of hours/materials _at_ SLAC
  shops
• Inflate by 40 for vendor profit
• Vacuum
• Catalog prices
• No volume discount
• Collimators, Dumps, Instrumentation
• Assume build at a DOE lab
• Grounds up estimates of hours/materials _at_ SLAC
  shops

9
Beam Delivery 5/18/00 Estimate179.6M
10
Comparison to 1999 Estimate
11
Engineering Savings 66
12
Summary

• Conceptual Design and RD are paramount at this
  point
• design impact on physics should be stressed
• Engineering model
• should be flexible and parametric to respond to
  design changes
• Beam Delivery costs estimates are
• relatively small
• half due to an engineering model and half due to
  a business model
• We should
• develop a parametric cost model good for
  trade-off studies
• allow MBA group to apply a a scheduled
  acquisition strategy uniformly across the project
• assign more effort into parsing data from LHC,
  SLC, PeP-II,.. into buckets and flavors useful
  for a NLC cost comparison