BNL FNAL LBNL SLAC Magnet Resources Cost Schedule

BNL -FNAL - LBNL - SLAC Magnet Resources, Cost & Schedule and Recap of the LARP Magnet Program Rich Stanek Introduction Goals of the Program Planning Methodology Resources Cost Schedule Summary Conclusions DOE review, June 1, 2005 Magnet Resources, Cost & Schedule - R Stanek 1

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 collaboration’s 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 (Nb 3 Sn) magnets (one of the enabling technologies for future accelerators) LARP is an R&D 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 DOE review, June 1, 2005 Magnet Resources, Cost & Schedule - R Stanek 2

LARP Magnet Program Goals Demonstrate by 2009, that Nb 3 Sn magnets are a viable choice for an LHC IR Upgrade => 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 (1 m long) model magnets of acceptable gradient and aperture (>200 T/m, 90 mm) while selecting a mechanical support system => FY 05 through FY 07 TQ series 2) Demonstrate scale up capability (4 m long) with same gradient (>200 T/m), aperture (90 mm) and performance (field quality and training) => FY 08 through FY 09 LQ series 3) Explore higher gradients (>250 T/m) and larger apertures with short (1 m long) model magnets => FY 08 through FY 09 HQ series DOE review, June 1, 2005 Magnet Resources, Cost & Schedule - R Stanek 3

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 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 R&D) Insulation (rad hard requirements) Fabrication techniques (handling, impregnating, reacting…) Design, build and test Nb 3 Sn 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 => analysis and use of subscale coils to get answers and cabling facility BNL => design, fabrication and testing capabilities FNAL => fabrication infrastructure and test facilities (materials & magnets) DOE review, June 1, 2005 Magnet Resources, Cost & Schedule - R Stanek 4

Program Planning Methodology 1) Program is defined at the annual Collaboration Meeting, refined by the Magnet Steering Committee and reviewed by DOE, LAPAC and LARP Executive Committee 2) Individual tasks are identified that lead to success of program goals 3) Task leaders are chosen 4) Estimates of the required resources, costs and schedules (including milestones) are made for each task 5) Each Lab agrees on the availability of resources and possible core program contributions to the effort 6) L 2 coordinators develop detailed schedules which map out the execution of the tasks 7) Overall schedule/plan is established that meshes the four parts of the magnet program together 8) Check that budget constraints are met or iterate as necessary 9) Track progress (L 2 coordinators + quarterly reports) DOE review, June 1, 2005 Magnet Resources, Cost & Schedule - R Stanek 5

Total Available Resources for LARP Each Lab brings a set of available labor resources to LARP program LARP Management (Program Leaders + MSC + L 2) 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 => This benefits LARP and the core programs LARP budget can not/will not support all of these people DOE review, June 1, 2005 LB BN FN Tot NL L AL al Scienti 13. 3. 0 5. 9 4. 9 sts 8 Engin 16. 4. 2 6. 4 6. 2 eers 8 Desig 2. 0 1. 7 2. 0 5. 7 ners 20. Techs 3. 8 9. 0 7. 2 0 Magnet Resources, Cost & Schedule - R Stanek 6

Current Labor Resource Usage FNAL plan for LARP FY 05 activities calls for ~3. 1 FTE in salary support In FY 06 this increases to 9. 3 FTE LB FNA BNL NL L LAR LBNL plan for LARP FY 05 activities calls for ~ 3. 2 FTE in P salary support FTE In FY 06 this increases to 10 FTE in BNL plan for LARP FY 05 activities 2. 3 1. 7 3. 1 calls for ~1. 7 FTE in salary support Budg In FY 06 this increases to 6. 8 FTE et (FY 0 Core programs will be able to contribute additional labor (to work on LARP related tasks) if budgets allow. LARP will need this 5) added effort to be successful. LAR DOE review, June 1, 2005 Magnet Resources, Cost & Schedule - R Stanek 7

Budget/Cost Estimation Initial Task Cost Estimation is done using “standard” LARP rates Scientist/Engineer $180 K/yr (fully loaded) Designer/Tech $150 K/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 M&S 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 DOE review, June 1, 2005 Magnet Resources, Cost & Schedule - R Stanek 8

FY 06 LARP Magnet Budget distribution needs to be flexible to respond to changing circumstances (R&D 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 => some questions can be answered now LARP budget is limited & lots to do => LARP and the core programs need each other DOE review, June 1, 2005 Magnet Resources, Cost & Schedule - R Stanek 9

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 => sometimes very difficult decisions (delay of open mid-plane dipole) L 2 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 Nb 3 Sn quadrupole magnet has resulted in a more focused approach (narrower scope and streamlined path, not allowing for excursions to explore more of parameter space) => this is where the core programs are important LARP funding profile is fairly flat 11 M$ (FY 06 & 07), 12 M$ (FY 08 & 09) DOE review, June 1, 2005 Magnet Resources, Cost & Schedule - R Stanek 10

Schedule The overall LARP schedule is intended to be used as a tool to help plan and manage the magnet R&D program. [It is not the same as a Resource Loaded Schedule used to control a project] L 2 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 L 2 schedules is “rolled up” into the integrated schedule to create an overall plan that shows interdependencies between L 2 activities and possible over commitments of funds or resources Overall plan change as a result of budget profile changes results from completed tasks agreement with CERN management for shift of priorities DOE review, June 1, 2005 Magnet Resources, Cost & Schedule - R Stanek 11

Overall Schedule – Work in Progress DOE review, June 1, 2005 Magnet Resources, Cost & Schedule - R Stanek 12

Summary ØThe LARP R&D Magnet Program has a very specific intermediate goal => to demonstrate the viability of Nb 3 Sn magnets for the LHC quadrupole upgrade by 2009 ØLARP requires an effective collaborative effort among the three Labs (LBNL, FNAL) and a by product of this program will be a stronger high-field magnet capability across the DOE complex ØLARP 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 ØLARP is an R&D 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 DOE review, June 1, 2005 Magnet Resources, Cost & Schedule - R Stanek 13

Conclusions 1. LARP Magnet R&D Program is technically challenging 2. Budget is tight and will force some aspects of the program that could be worked on earlier to be delayed 3. Schedule is aggressive and relies on 1. the material vendor to develop a stable conductor with appropriate Jc and reproducibility (CDP is a key partner) 2. success of the short model magnet tasks 4. LARP has access to good people (technically competent and motivated to succeed) and good facilities (infrastructure that Lab/core programs already have in place) 5. Plan exists to achieve the Program Goals on the required timescale DOE review, June 1, 2005 Magnet Resources, Cost & Schedule - R Stanek 14