GDE Report

1. GDE Report Barry Barish Caltech / GDE 20-Nov-06 RDR Design Freeze Global Design Effort

2. Outline • Agenda Items • Progress towards the RDR • Provisional cost estimates • Discussion on the review process of the RDR • Site aspects of RDR • Additional Items • GDE Coordination of Global R&D Program • Common Fund – Request for FY07 Global Design Effort

3. Progress toward RDR Global Design Effort

4. Baseline to a RDR 2006 July Dec Jan Frascati Bangalore Vancouver Valencia Freeze Configuration Organize for RDR Review Design/Cost Methodology Review Initial Design / Cost Review Final Design / Cost RDR Document Design and Costing Preliminary RDR Released Global Design Effort

5. Vancouver Cost Data Global Design Effort

6. Costs by Area System Global Design Effort

7. Costs by Technical & Global System Global Design Effort

8. Optimizing Cost to Performance Global Design Effort

9. Vancouver Costs for BDS • Cost drivers • CF&S • Magnet system • Vacuum system • Installation • Dumps & Collimators Total Cost Additional costs for IR20 and IR2 Global Design Effort

10. 2/20 mrad  14/14 mrad • Motivation • Reduce costs • 2 mrad beam line expensive, risky, especially extraction line • Common collider hall • Advantages • Improved radiation conditions in the extraction lines • Better performance of downstream diagnostics • Easier design and operation of extraction optics and magnets • Reduced back scattering from extraction line elements • Disadvantages • Impact on physics (appears minor at present). • Simpler incoming beam optics • R&D on small crossing angles will continue as alternative Global Design Effort

11. On-surface Detector Assembly • Vancouver WBS considered the underground halls sized at 32m (W) x 72m (L) each to allow underground assembly of the largest considered detector. • Conventional Facilities Schedule gives detector hall is ready for detector assembly 5 yrs from project start • If so, cannot fit our goal of “7years until first beam” and “8years until physics run” • Surface assembly allows to save 2-2.5 years and allows to fit into this goal • The collider hall size may be smaller (~40-50%) in this case • A building on surface is needed, but savings may be still substantial • Optimization needs to be done Global Design Effort

12. On-surface assembly • CMS assembly approach • Assembled on the surface in parallel with underground work • Allows pre-commissioning before lowering • Lowering using dedicated heavy lifting equipment • Potential for big time saving • Reduce size of underground hall required Global Design Effort

13. Cost details of new 14/14 baseline Should we go to a single IR and push pull system and save 30% of BCD costs? Updates from CF&S Magnets to be included Global Design Effort

14. Push-Pull Evaluation • Initiated by GDE & WWS at the end of September • Detailed list of questions to be studied developed: • Large group of accelerator and detector colleagues, from ILC and other projects, is participating in design and discussion of these question • The task force of detector experts was formed to contribute to detailed evaluation of the whole set of technical issues http://www-project.slac.stanford.edu/ilc/acceldev/beamdelivery/rdr/docs/push-pull/ Global Design Effort

15. Cost Reductions Logged Our efforts at Valencia identified another 4.91%! Global Design Effort

16. ILC Documents • Several reports for different audiences • Brochure – non-technical audiences, ready now • “Quantum Universe” level booklet ~30 pages • Executive Summary ~ 30 pages • Physics motivation, accelerator and detectors • RDR Report ~ 300 pages • high level description of the accelerator • DCR Report ~ 250 pages • physics and detectors Global Design Effort

17. RDR Report • RDR is a high level description of the accelerator, CFS, sites and costs • A snapshot of what we propose to build • not a history of R&D, design evolution, and alternatives • Editors: • Nan Phinney (SLAC), Nobu Toge (KEK), Nick Walker (DESY) • Original schedule was complete draft now, but has been pushed back because of cost iterations Global Design Effort

18. Reviewing RDR & Costs Global Design Effort

19. Plans until Beijing (Feb. '07) RDR prepare 1st drafts RDR final editing November December January February 2006 2007 Valencia Further cost consolidation CCR preparation & submission Cost & Design Freeze 30/11 Prepare for Full Cost Review SLAC Cost Review 14-16/12 Final cost corrections and documentation MAC 10-12/01/07 Agency cost briefings Beijing: RDR draft published Global Design Effort

20. Charge for MAC Review • On Wednesday 10, Thursday 11 and Friday 12 (until noon) January 2007, there will be an ILC MAC meeting at the Cockcroft Institute, Daresbury, UK. The major item for the meeting is the ILC cost and overall design, with specific MAC tasks: • Review the soundness of the overall RDR concept, identify any areas of concern, note what R&D is still needed, and comment on whether the performance parameters can be met. • Review the cost methodology and identify any areas of concern. • This will be the first occasion at which costs will be presented outside of the GDE. Global Design Effort

21. What Happens after Beijing? • Public Release of Draft RDR and Preliminary Costing at Beijing • Cost Reviews, etc • Finalize RDR by Summer 2007? • Enter into Engineering Design Phase • Planning underway internally • Design will evolve through value engineering and R&D program • General Goal is to have Construction Proposal ready by 2010 Global Design Effort

22. Proposed RDR Review Process Global Design Effort

23. Presentation Strategy • The GDE is purposefully constituted as a tri-regional design team whose goal is to produce by 2009 a Technical Design Report (TDR) which will contain a detailed, engineering-based design and cost for the ILC. • The initial step towards the TDR was to establish a Reference Design Report (RDR) which will define a self-consistent set of ILC design parameters and associated implementation scope. The RDR also contains an initial estimate of cost at the 20% level which is mostly parametric in nature. This initial cost estimate is at sufficient detail to permit a) trend analysis for cost reduction/optimization and b) give guidance for the R&D and industrialization that must accompany the engineering design process of the TDR. Global Design Effort

24. Cost Review Guideline • An international team should be convened prior to completion of the RDR to review those aspects of the RDR cost estimate that strongly influence the TDR. Given the intermediate nature of the RDR estimate as discussed above, it would seem premature to review in detail every aspect of an ILC cost estimate. Rather this review team should: • review cost trends and relative costs of sub-systems as they relate to potential scope changes to be incorporated in the TDR • review cost trends and relative costs of sub-systems and comment on their relevance to the R&D program needed to complete the TDR • review the methodology used in the estimate to ensure that it is appropriate for establishing an accurate TDR cost assessment. Evaluate that the method and format of estimation can serve the needs of regional authorities as they develop plans for potential involvement as partners in the ILC Global Design Effort

25. Siting Aspects of RDR&Candidate Sites Global Design Effort

26. Site Aspects of RDR • Three Samples Sites • ILC Conventional Facilities Group: Jean-Luc Baldy (CERN), Vic Kuchler (Fermilab) and Atsushi Enomoto (KEK) + Support Group • Sample Site Analysis - Europe (CERN); Japan (?); US (Fermilab) also, TESLA for reference and Russia unsolicited • Conventional Facilities are expensive! Make narrow definition for “host costs” - goal ~ 25% of total. Global Design Effort

27. Costs by Technical & Global System Global Design Effort

28. Site Aspects of RDR • Three Samples Sites • ILC Conventional Facilities Group: Jean-Luc Baldy (CERN), Vic Kuchler (Fermilab) and Atsushi Enomoto (KEK) + Support Group • Sample Site Analysis - Europe (CERN); Japan (?); US (Fermilab) also, TESLA for reference and Russia unsolicited • Conventional Facilities are expensive! Make narrow definition for “host costs” - goal ~ 25% of total. • Costing Regional – Best estimates in “own” system of costing. They are close to equal, meaning the RDR siting chapter can concentrate on requirements, technical features, cost drivers, safety issues, other issues etc. • Need “true” candidate sites within ~ 1-2 years for realistic engineering design. How do we solicit candidate sites Global Design Effort

29. CoordinatingGlobal R&D Global Design Effort

30. The ‘S’ R&D Task Forces S0 High-Gradient Cavities S1 High-Gradient Cryomodule To address priority R&D items, RDB has convened several ‘task forces’. S0-S3 will report on Friday AM GDE plenary S2 Test Linac S3 Damping Ring S4 Beam Delivery S5…Sn Global Design Effort

31. The ‘S’ R&D Task Forces • Addresses current ‘poor’ yield for EP cavities • Primary goal: establish parameters for routinely producing 35 MV/m EP’d cavities • required  80% yield S0 High-Gradient Cavities S1 High-Gradient Cryomodule S2 Test Linac S3 Damping Ring S4 Beam Delivery H. Hayano, T. Higo, L. Lilje, J. Mammosser, H. Padamsee, M. Ross, K. Saito S5…Sn Global Design Effort

32. Common Fund Status and FY07 Request Global Design Effort

33. FALC Report – May 06 Global Design Effort

34. FALC Report – May 06 Global Design Effort

35. Projected Budgets Global Design Effort

36. Summary • Status of Costing • First costing available at Vancouver (July) • Cost to performance optimization • Status & Plans for design modifications • Several proposals accepted and some rejected • Changes having physics impact (Valencia) • Complete RDR by Beijing Meetings • Global planning for critical R&D beginning • Formation of ‘S’ task forces Global Design Effort

37. Final Discussion Points • Discussion Items • The MAC Review in January? Preview of RDR and Costs or list of items? • Informing ILCSC (Feb 4?) • Informing FALC ? • Strategy for Release – ICFA Feb • International Cost Review (FALC Sponsored?) • How are we going to approach getting candidate sites? Who solicits? • Common Fund Request Global Design Effort