ILC Engineering Design Phase - Status

1
ILC Engineering Design Phase - Status Plans

• Mike Harrison
• GDE/BNL

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

3
Reference Design Cost Estimate

• 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
• S 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.

• Summary
• RDR 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 _at_ 1,700
  hrs/yr)
• 1 ILC Unit 1 (2007)

4
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.

5
Engineering Design phase will include

1. Basic RD to demonstrate that all components can
   be engineered
2. RD 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.

6
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 RD program
• n.b. the Reference design costs were reduced by
  25 from the original numbers

7
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 bases
• For example ? India

8
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
  RD,
• primary cost drivers
• SCRF linac technology
• CFS,
• 70 of the ILC value estimate.
• These two will be a major focus during the EDR

9
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 risk assessment
10
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 RD

11
EDR Objectives Main Linac Technology

• Complete the critical RD 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

12
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

13
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 RD
• by simulation
• Maintain a risk register, and develop alterative
  fall-back solutions.

14
Restructuring the GDE

• Project Management for the EDR Phase
• Devised along functional lines
• (instead of institutional or regional)
• Many WPs 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

15
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.

16
ILC Project Management as a proposal for the
organization toward EDR
V-070710
ILC Council (ILCSC) Funding Agencies and
Institutions
Global Design Effort
Directors Office Director B. Barish
assisted by Project Managers M. Ross, N.
Walker, A. Yamamoto
Board - Accelerator Advisory - RD sub-panel
- Design Industr. SubP.
Executive Committee Director, Reg. Directors,
Accelerator Experts, PMs
Regional Leadership (by Regional Directors) -
Funding and Authorization
Technical Leadership (by Project Managers) -
Engineering Design and RD
Tech. Sys. A. Yamamoto
Global Sys. M. Ross
Accel. Sysy N. Walker
Asiay M. Nozaki
US M. Harrison
Europe B. Foster
P. M. Officey N. Walker
Many Tasks
Institution
Institution
Institution
Instit. .
Instit. .
17
EDR Project Management
18
Managing a non-centrally funded project
technical

• 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.

19
Beam Delivery System Level 3
20
Beam Delivery System Work Packages
TENTATIVE !
21
Beam Delivery System (sub) Work Packages
Structure of sub work-packages
22
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.

23
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

24
2007/08 EDR Meeting Schedule
FALC
ILCSC
05/07
10/07
03/08
06/08
DESY ILC2007 PM Team announcement
FNAL GDE meeting
Tohoku GDE meeting
EDR Kick Off Meetings
EU GDE meeting (Dubna ?)
EDR R D Meetings
25
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)

26
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