Early Thoughts on the Reference Design Report

PHG - Dec. 9, 2005 ILC-GDE Fracati, Italy 1

Early Thoughts on theReference Design Report

Peter H. Garbincius

for the

GDE Design / Cost Board


Barry showed the overall organization for RDR yesterday:


GDE Design/Cost Board:

Peter H. Garbincius*, Chairman,Wilhelm Bialowons*, Atsushi Enomoto, Jean-Pierre Delahaye,Robert Kephart,Olivier Napoly, Ewan Paterson,Nan Phinney, Tetsuo Shidara*, andNobuhiro Terunuma

(* = Cost Engineering Group)With backup by the Accelerator Physics Group:Tor Raubenheimer, Nick Walker, Kaoru Yokoya


Design / Cost BoardMission Statement

again, from Barry, yesterday


Preparation of the Reference Design Report Design Cost Board will provide guidance and

structure, define depth requirements for the elements of cost effort, develop, advise, lead, review, and manage the preparation of RDR.

Area Systems Groups are led by full-time teams, coordinate Technical & Global System Groups, and are responsible for providing detailed designs, text, and cost estimates

Work together with Change Control Board, R&D Board, and Cost Engineering Team

Final Publication Deadline: end of 2006


Interaction w Area System Groups DCB soon has to tell them what we need. Gotta make sure they have the

manpower resources to do the jobon the needed schedule.

Determine scope, schedules, goals, and deliverables.

DCB definitely reviews and approves!

will require monthly reports


the RDR Design Matrix

Area Systems

Technical Systems e- source e+ source Damping

Rings RTML Main Linac BDS Vacuum systems Magnet systems Cryomodule Cavity Package RF Power Instrumentation Dumps and Collimators Accelerator Physics

Global Systems Commissioning, Operations & Reliability Control System Cryogenics CF&S Installation


one-line attributes for cost est. inclusive – can’t neglect anything important “parametric” – quantities, escalation,

overheads, labor rates, cost vs size or performance (e.g. gradient)

Barry - how does cost vary with a performance parameter? e.g. # bunches?

bottom-up – some elements, but many will be top-down, scaled, parametric, etc.

flexible – easily follow any scope changes !!!


Global issues will be important thanks Jonathan!

Can’t leave anything out: follow all items from conception, design, procurement, testing, inventory, material handling, installation, commissioning…

Be careful at boundaries, interfaces, and hand-offs between groups & systems

Performance requirements & specs will determine engineering effort at cost

Make sure you specify what you need, but don’t over-specify (driving up costs)


Quality of evolving cost estimate

Use whatever we have at any given time:

e.g. today we have TESLA TDR & USLCTOS Update as new and better info is available

a “living” document Need to carry along status & date of estimate

& “basis of estimate” tag for each element Goal is to get adequate and sufficient cost

estimate for RDR deadline


We do have some prior examples

NLC Copper Book, TESLA TDR, GLC,

and the USLC Options Study We should review the approach

and adopt what is good

while improving what is not


Tor sent suggested WBS - PHG updated (112 active cost packages at this time)will expand to > 1000 internal elements

1.0 ILC Accelerator Construction

1.1 Accelerator Systems1.1.1 Accelerator Parameters1.1.2 Electron Source

1.1.2.1 Vacuum systems1.1.2.2 Magnet systems1.1.2.3 RF Cryomodule - these would likely defer specs to main linac1.1.2.4 RF Cavities - includes normal conducting cavities1.1.2.5 RF Power1.1.2.6 Instrumentation1.1.2.7 Dumps and Collimators1.1.2.8 Accelerator Physics - Optics Design1.1.2.9 Global Systems

1.1.2.9.1 Commissioning, Operations, & Reliability1.1.2.9.2 Control System (specific)1.1.2.9.3 Cryogenics (specific)1.1.2.9.4 CF&S (specific)1.1.2.9.5 Installation

1.1.2.10 System Integration1.1.3 Positron Source

analagous substructure1.1.4 Damping rings

analagous substructure1.1.5 Ring To Main Linac (RTML)

analagous substructure1.1.6 Main Linac

analagous substructure1.1.7 Beam Delivery System (BDS)

analagous substructure

1.2 Global Technical Systems1.2.1 Commissioning, Operations & Reliability

1.2.1.1 Machine Protection System1.2.1.2 Personnel Protection System1.2.1.3 Availability Requirements1.2.1.4 Fault recovery and operations1.2.1.5 Commissioning schedule

1.2.2 Control SystemControl system Timing systemApplications software

1.2.3 Cryogenics1.2.4 Conventional Facilities & Site (CF&S)

1.2.4.1 Site1.2.4.2 Electrical distribution1.2.4.3 Cooling systems1.2.4.4 Accelerator Housings1.2.4.5 Central campus

1.3 Accelerator construction cost and schedule1.3.1 Costing methodology1.3.2 Component fabrication1.3.3 QA1.3.4 Warehousing1.3.5 Installation1.3.6 Schedule1.3.7 Accelerator Costs

1.4 Accelerator pre-ops1.5 Accelerator construction management

2.0 Detector Construction


week beginning Sunday, count-down_to_RDR.xls PHG 9-Dec-054-Dec-05 BCD - Concepts decide

11-Dec-05 define what DCB needs award scope & Define scope and format18-Dec-05 Area Sys begin workin on XFEL details Reference Design Report25-Dec-05 designs, specifications studies of studies editorial and publishing

1-Jan-06 drawings, parts list Execute prepare procedures & standards8-Jan-06 descriptions, etc. XFEL US assign writing tasks

15-Jan-06 Area Systems Groups Industrial Industrial begin prelim write-ups22-Jan-06 refine designs Studies Cost29-Jan-06 validate designs Studies5-Feb-06 begin prelim cost est preliminary writeups due

12-Feb-0619-Feb-06 edit and publish prelims26-Feb-06 status reports at Bangalore5-Mar-06 Bangalore GDE Meeting, March 7-9 present at Bangalore

12-Mar-06 Cost Estimating Phase DCB reviews & critiques19-Mar-06 Lock-in Stable BCD Execute preliminary writeups26-Mar-06 under full Change Control US begin intermediate writeups

2-Apr-06 full cost estimating phase Industrial9-Apr-06 Cost

16-Apr-06 Studies23-Apr-0630-Apr-067-May-06

14-May-0621-May-0628-May-06

4-Jun-06 need cost estimates intermed writeups due11-Jun-06 Evaluate cost estimates text, but edit and publish18-Jun-06 decide how/what to adjust no public intermediate writeups25-Jun-06 based on parametrizations cost info DCB reveiws & critques

2-Jul-06 re-evaluate cost studies intermediate writeups9-Jul-06 initiate 2nd round of cost est

16-Jul-06 Vancouver GDE Meeting, July 18-23 continue present at Vancouver


16-Jul-06 Vancouver GDE Meeting, July 18-23 continue present at Vancouver23-Jul-06 re-do some cost studies US begin final writeups30-Jul-06 if needed Industrial6-Aug-06 with fast turn-around Cost

13-Aug-06 Studies20-Aug-06 develop revised strageties27-Aug-06 if needed3-Sep-06

10-Sep-0617-Sep-0624-Sep-06 too late!

1-Oct-06 final cost estimates due use final writeups due8-Oct-06 final analyses preparations Industrial Studies final report preparation

15-Oct-06 as cross-check of22-Oct-06 cost estimates29-Oct-065-Nov-06 complete full BCD document

12-Nov-06 final reviews and QA checks19-Nov-0626-Nov-063-Dec-06

10-Dec-0617-Dec-0624-Dec-0631-Dec-06 publish Reference Design Report


OK, what did we leave out, what do we do next?

Exploit our collective project management experience,

both within and external to ILC Your input and collective wisdom

are vital elements in this process!

Please help us prepare the RDR!


End Presentation Backup Slides to Follow


What information do we need? Scope (text/pix), Cost Estimates, Schedule Schedule – input to cost estimates, e.g.

needing 600 klystrons over 5 years

may be substantially more expensive

than same 600 klystrons over 8 years Two funding models: (differ betw regions)

technically limited (no time constraint)

or flat funding – same # $ per year


Cost Estimate Elements

How many parallel estimates do we need (from Asia, Americas, Europe)?

3 or 4 or 5 site studies! How do you handle multiple inputs into

determining “value”? World-market cost for common items,

must do studies for unique elements


Industrial Cost Estimate Studies

TESLA – content and cost estimates confidentialDieter Trines promised copy of tender for studies

I requested reports without costs – did not say yes/no

XFEL – will have CryoModule Assembly and RF Coupler studies back by mid-2006content will be public, cost est confidential

B. Petersen & T. Garvey will send copies of tender

U.S. Studies – cavities, CM, coupler, CFS ?not before latter half of 2006 at earliest

Asian Studies – content and status?


Will Industrial Studies be useful?

Will they be in time to be useful for RDR? Will we get any lower level cost estimates?

or just total cost of XFEL Main Linac? How can we insure confidentiality of

sensitive cost information?

We surely don’t want to bias XFEL bidding!


Nitty-Gritty

What is in/out of cost estimate? How do we present cost/value?

as the lowest value (world-market)

average value, range of estimate, probabilistic? 90% CL?

What about different SITE-dependent ests? Gotta DOCUMENT what we are presenting

& provide a translation guide for each region


WWS Group led by Hitoshi Yamamoto and Jim Brau

Preparing major physics sections:• The Physics case for the ILC

• Detectors – incorporating 3 ideas

• Simulations of machine & detector interaction:• Detector performance, resolution, backgrounds

initially using model of beam: phase space,

momentum spread, disruption, etc.

will soon need fully simulated beam


Value (rather than cost) approach Value is worth to the ILC project,

rather than worth to contributing country Approach developed by ITER (R. Aymar)

vetted through Dan Lehman (US DOE) Countries bid to provide some piece of

project and not funds. Internally apply their own overheads, contingency, and labor ratesto determine their cost, without changing value

Yes, ITER has common fund (some % of value assessment–acts as management contingency)


ITER used 100 cost packages

ITER assigned “value units” to only

~ 100 cost packages

a pretty high level WBS roll-up

many more lower level items

had to have been cost estimated

and rolled-up to form these packages upon which member countries could bid Does that number make sense for ILC-RDR?


Although some people will tell you that they know exactly how we should define “value”,

I don’t think we can possibly know at this beginning stage.

We don’t want to leave anything out, or close avenues, so we should gather all reasonable information from multiple studies, and combine/average/select only when we better understand the trade-offs of how to present cost or value.


Program Management Tools

for Project Definition: EXCEL, SLAC WBS, MS Project we will eventually need to migrate to a more powerful,

integrated cost & schedule management system Primavera is the choice at SLAC, ANL, JLab,

but not at Fermilab, DESY, KEK, CERN, DESYmaybe not so useful for project definitioncosts: licenses, business computing support

“experts” (consultants), users (us) learning curves for us

using sophisticated tool will show that we are serious players

Documents

Early Thoughts on the Reference Design Report