Magnet Resources, Cost

1
Magnet Resources, Cost ScheduleandRecap of
the LARP Magnet Program Rich Stanek
Introduction Goals of the Program Planning
Methodology Resources Cost Schedule Summary Conclu
sions
2
Introduction

• LARP Magnet Collaboration is centered in three
  Labs LBNL, BNL FNAL
• Success of the magnet program depends on
  teamwork that utilizes all of the collaborations
  resources while playing to the strengths of each
  Lab
• An important byproduct of the LARP collaboration
  will be an overall stronger DOE capability to
  produce high performance (Nb3Sn) magnets (one of
  the enabling technologies for future
  accelerators)
• LARP is an RD Program not a construction project
  (managed accordingly)
• Each Lab has a core program that in many ways
  complements LARP
• Infrastructure and human resources are available
  to LARP because these core programs exist
• Given budget constraints, LARP needs the core
  program support to establish and succeed with a
  reasonable magnet program plan

3
LARP Magnet Program Goals

• LARP Magnet Program Goals
• Demonstrate by 2009, that Nb3Sn magnets are a
  viable choice for an LHC IR Upgrade
• gt requires stable conductor, technology choice
  for a mechanical support system and scale up
  capability with reproducible results
• 1) Demonstrate predictable and reproducible
  performance from short (1m long) model magnets
  of acceptable gradient and aperture (gt200T/m,
  90mm) while selecting a mechanical support system
• gt FY05 through FY07 TQ series
• 2) Demonstrate scale up capability (4m long)
  with same gradient (gt200T/m), aperture (90mm)
  and performance (field quality and training)
• gt FY08 through FY09 LQ series
• 3) Explore higher gradients (gt250T/m) and
  larger apertures with short (1m long) model
  magnets
• gt FY08 through FY09 HQ series

4
Achieving the Goals

• To be successful and achieve our goals LARP must
• Continue to develop a collaborative effort (have
  a good start)
• Need input from all Labs to build a strong
  consensus on a chosen design
• Need coordinated efforts to understand and
  solve the materials issues
• Need to build up common capabilities/procedures
  among Labs (flexibility)
• Concentrate on technical areas where issues
  exist
• Mechanics (preload, max stress, alignment)
• SC material (strand cable RD)
• Insulation (rad hard requirements)
• Fabrication techniques (handling, impregnating,
  reacting)
• Design, build and test Nb3Sn coils/magnets over
  a range of options
• Exploit the synergy between LARP and the core
  programs
• Utilize the strengths of each Lab (although
  every Lab has full capabilities)
• LBNL gt analysis and use of subscale coils to
  get answers and cabling facility
• BNL gt design, fabrication and testing
  capabilities
• FNAL gt fabrication infrastructure and test
  facilities (materials magnets)

5
Program Planning Methodology

• Program is defined at the annual Collaboration
  Meeting, refined by the Magnet Steering Committee
  and reviewed by DOE, LAPAC and LARP Executive
  Committee
• Individual tasks are identified that lead to
  success of program goals
• Task leaders are chosen
• Estimates of the required resources, costs and
  schedules (including milestones) are made for
  each task
• Each Lab agrees on the availability of resources
  and possible core program contributions to the
  effort
• L2 coordinators develop detailed schedules which
  map out the execution of the tasks
• Overall schedule/plan is established that meshes
  the four parts of the magnet program together
• Check that budget constraints are met or iterate
  as necessary
• Track progress (L2 coordinators quarterly
  reports)

6
Total Available Resources for LARP

• Each Lab brings a set of available labor
  resources to LARP program
• LARP Management (Program Leaders MSC L2) is
  responsible for creating the optimum match of
  budget resources to the tasks by selecting
  which Labs are best suited to perform each part
• Collaboration is a key ingredient in the formula
  for LARP success, so some effort is dedicated to
  learning, sharing and modifying procedures and
  techniques between Labs to establish a common set
  of working guidelines and experiences gt This
  benefits LARP and the core programs
• LARP budget can not/will not support all of these
  people

7
Current Labor Resource Usage

• FNAL plan for LARP FY05 activities calls for 3.1
  FTE in salary support
• In FY06 this increases to 9.3 FTE
• LBNL plan for LARP FY05 activities calls for
  3.2 FTE in salary support
• In FY06 this increases to 10 FTE
• BNL plan for LARP FY05 activities calls for 1.7
  FTE in salary support
• In FY06 this increases to 6.8 FTE

Core programs will be able to contribute
additional labor (to work on LARP related tasks)
if budgets allow. LARP will need this added
effort to be successful.
8
Budget/Cost Estimation

• Initial Task Cost Estimation is done using
  standard LARP rates
• Scientist/Engineer 180K/yr (fully loaded)
• Designer/Tech 150K/yr (fully loaded)
• SC strand 1230/kg
• Once a task is explicitly defined, a responsible
  Lab is identified, and the required resources are
  understood, the specific labor rates for that
  particular Lab can be input into the cost
  estimate
• MS costs are optimized by choosing the lowest
  cost option for large purchases (SC strand) and
  by using common parts and vendors
• To minimize design and fabrication costs and
  promote commonality, CAD drawings and actual
  tooling/fixtures are shared among Labs
• Costs (developed in Task Sheets) are input using
  best estimate techniques and contingency is
  held by the LARP Program Managers

9
FY06 LARP Magnet Budget

• Budget distribution needs to be flexible to
  respond to changing circumstances (RD Program)
• Need to plan for success but prepare for
  difficulties (this is a process - subject to
  change)
• Strategic Decision Keep all three Labs actively
  engaged
• Activity associated with long magnet development
  cannot wait for the success of the short models
  gt some questions can be answered now
• LARP budget is limited lots to do
• gt LARP and the core programs need each other

10
LARP Budgets

• Each Lab is represented on the Magnet Steering
  Committee (MSC) and therefore has a voice in how
  the program is planned and executed
• gt sometimes very difficult decisions (delay of
  open mid-plane dipole)
• L2 coordinators are responsible for coordinating
  Task Sheets for work in their areas. Using
  standard times and costs for similar tasks
  (helps in the planning stage)
• Determining the final budget and split of funds
  is an iterative process but in the end it is a
  function of where the work has the best chance
  for success at the least cost to the program
• 2009 Goal of demonstrating a long Nb3Sn
  quadrupole magnet has resulted in a more focused
  approach (narrower scope and streamlined path,
  not allowing for excursions to explore more of
  parameter space)
• gt this is where the core programs are important
• LARP funding profile is fairly flat 11M (FY06
  07), 12M (FY08 09)

11
Schedule

• The overall LARP schedule is intended to be used
  as a tool to help plan and manage the magnet RD
  program. It is not the same as a Resource
  Loaded Schedule used to control a project
• L2 coordinators develop detailed schedules that
  include all of the important steps needed to
  complete a task. This is used to track the work
  at a more appropriate level and provide immediate
  feedback as to the completion of tasks and
  achievement of milestones
• Information from these L2 schedules is rolled
  up into the integrated schedule to create an
  overall plan that shows interdependencies between
  L2 activities and possible over commitments of
  funds or resources
• Overall plan can change as a result of
• budget profile changes
• results from completed tasks
• agreement with CERN management for shift of
  priorities

12
Overall Schedule Work in Progress
13
Summary

• The LARP RD Magnet Program has a very specific
  intermediate goal
• gt to demonstrate the viability of Nb3Sn
  magnets for the LHC quadrupole upgrade by 2009
• LARP requires an effective collaborative effort
  among the three Labs (LBNL, BNL, FNAL) and a by
  product of this program will be a stronger
  high-field magnet capability across the DOE
  complex
• LARP and the Labs core programs need each other
  for success
• Lab/core programs provide infrastructure and
  human resources
• LARP provides the specific application and
  focus for the technology
• They are complimentary
• LARP is an RD Program not a construction project
• Change of plan is inevitable
• Diversity in approach by different Labs is
  constructive
• Key is to utilize all available resources to
  develop a solution that meets the program goals

14
Conclusions

• LARP Magnet RD Program is technically
  challenging
• Budget is tight and will force some aspects of
  the program that could be worked on earlier to be
  delayed
• Schedule is aggressive and relies on
• the material vendor to develop a stable conductor
  with appropriate Jc and reproducibility (CDP is a
  key partner)
• success of the short model magnet tasks
• LARP has access to good people (technically
  competent and motivated to succeed) and good
  facilities (infrastructure that Lab/core programs
  already have in place)
• Plan exists to achieve the Program Goals on the
  required timescale