Proton Driver Options Cost Comparison - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


PPT – Proton Driver Options Cost Comparison PowerPoint presentation | free to view - id: 3d54b-ZTM4Y


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation

Proton Driver Options Cost Comparison


Rich Stanek - Proton Driver Director's Review. 3. Fermilab. Goal of the Comparison ... Use the same labor rates, $/sf for buildings and data format/cost roll up ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:165
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 25
Provided by: Keph


Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Proton Driver Options Cost Comparison

Proton Driver Options Cost Comparison
  • Rich Stanek
  • March 15 , 2005

  • Goal of the Comparison
  • History of the Numbers
  • Methodology Cost Estimating Approach
  • Results Comparing the Estimates
  • Cost Drivers
  • Observations Contingency Range of Values
  • Conclusions

Goal of the Comparison
  • Provide a fair and consistent cost comparison
    between the Linac and Synchrotron PD options
  • Independent of technical or physics related
  • Consistent level of estimation and detail for
    each option
  • Use the same labor rates, /sf for buildings and
    data format/cost roll up
  • Assemble a reasonable level of back up
    documentation (Basis of Estimate) for both cost
  • Understand the Range of Values for the cost of
    a PD
  • Provide the starting point/basis for the final PD
    cost estimate
  • NOTE Costs are shown in FY04 dollars and
    without GA charges unless specifically noted
  • GA and Contingency are added at the highest

History of the Numbers (Synchrotron)
  • PD I Study done for a 16 GeV Proton Driver (2000)
  • PD II Study reduced the energy to 8 GeV and added
    a SC Linac option (2002)
  • Much of the PD II Sync cost estimate was scaled
    from the original PD I numbers but then adjusted
    to include a replacement of the existing Front
    End Linac (Directors Charge Letter)
  • Familiarity of FNAL personnel with building
    synchrotron machines and how things scale, helped
    this estimate maintain its accuracy
  • The Synchrotron cost estimate has not had the
    same level of recent cost peer review nor working
    group participation as has the Linac cost
  • (Synchrotron technical design has been reviewed)

History of the Numbers (Linac)
  • Linac options initial cost estimate relied
    heavily on scaling from TESLA and SNS numbers
    with appropriate modification for technical
  • As a core project team was formed, the Linac
    estimate was further refined and developed by
    forming Working Groups and performing cost
    exercises (ex. Civil Working Group gt meets
    weekly and cryomodule cost estimate exercise gt
    resulted in RFQ)
  • Experience based on FNAL/TESLA/SNS actuals was
    used where applicable

Cost Estimating Approach
  • Take a conservative approach to estimating the
    costs of the PD (defendable numbers)
  • Cost estimators started out with the knowledge
    that an overall contingency was going to be added
    to the entire project cost (30 across the
    board)gt some subsystems added scope contingency
    as part of their input estimates
  • Cost estimates cover components up to and
    including injection into the Main Injector.
  • Cost of the Main Injector Upgrades (ex. RF
    Upgrades) was not included in either cost
  • Assumption is that as the PD project moves
    forward and detail designs are further developed
    it will go through a Value Engineering stage
    where technical/cost trade-offs will be evaluated
    and a true contingency and risk matrix will be

Maintaining the Accuracy
  • Each option had a primary contact
  • Synchrotron gt Weiren Chou
  • Linac gt Bill Foster
  • This allowed for a reasonable level of checks
    and balances in the comparison effort
  • Tried to use the same people to make estimates
    for both systems (where applicable)

  • Evaluate documentation that was compiled for the
    PD II Study gt the starting point
  • Put both estimates into a common form (Excel)
    using common costs where possible (labor rates
    based on TD actual averages and BTeV values)
  • Improve the accuracy of the estimates
  • Look for holes/missing items
  • Look for obvious errors in the estimates
  • Look for inconsistencies between the two options
  • gt Led to new estimates for several key
  • Compare the two options (escalate old est. to
  • Perform reality checks internal review

Cost Comparison - High Level
Most of the initial installation work will be
Davis Bacon and shows up as MS costs GA rate
will be less on large purchasing actions
Comparing the Estimates
  • Civil Construction
  • Both use the same format of estimation (FESS
  • Linac is an all new estimate gt based on new
  • Includes more detail in terms of exact
  • Synchrotron is a mixture of new/old estimates
  • Old estimates (2002) were escalated to 2004
    (using DOE Guidelines)
  • Use the same /sf for new/similar buildings
  • Both use construction techniques very familiar to
  • Site choices made to allow ease of accelerator
    ops and future growth
  • Linac option has had external consultant look at
    feeder req.
  • Sync placement is in close proximity to existing
  • Has both positive and negative implications
  • Should make it easier to tap into existing
  • May have more of an impact on current operations

Comparing the Estimates (contd)
  • Linac/Front End Improvements
  • Both only have high level estimates
  • Based on TESLA, SNS, FNAL Linac Upgrade or vendor
  • Magnets (Main Synchrotron and all transport
  • Both Based on FNAL/TD estimates (using std.
    methodology which has been accurate in the past)
    gt use current steel and conductor prices
  • Sync gt RD of rapid cycling, large aperture
    magnets not included
  • Both assume existing MTF (conventional) is fully
  • Utilities
  • Linac gt new estimate based on conceptual design
    FNAL experience
  • Sync gt scaled from MI actuals/modified using
    FNAL experience
  • Power Supplies RF Equipment
  • Both based on FNAL experience, purchase orders
    and vendor quotes
  • Linac/Klystrons gt uses costs from recent TESLA
    purchase orders

Comparing the Estimates (contd)
  • Cryomodules (Linac)
  • Based on vendor RFQ (55 of MS est.) and
    TESLA/SNS experience
  • Assembly estimates use TESLA LHC Project
  • Assumes CM assembly infrastructure in place
    (synergy with SMTF/ILC)
  • Modulators Pulse Transformers (Linac)
  • Based on actuals for equipment supplied by FNAL
    to TESLA (TTF)
  • Modified to take into account quantity/price
  • Instrumentation Controls
  • Sync estimated down to individual components
  • Linac contains estimates at a high level
    (beginning to get more detail)
  • Infrastructure Integration
  • Often neglected when estimating individual
  • Both used equal estimates (high level) where
  • Most of the initial installation will be
    Davis-Bacon work

Comparing the Estimates (contd)
  • RD Costs
  • Linac cost estimate assumes that the
    infrastructure to test cavities and build
    cryomodules will be in place either at FNAL or at
    other collaborating Labs (ex. LANL/ANL for spoke
    cavities) at the start of the Project gt synergy
    with SMTF and ILC RD project
  • Therefore the cost to set up these facilities is
    not included
  • Linac effort will continue to take advantage of
    ongoing work at SNS, TESLA TTF and other SCRF
  • Synchrotron assumes the RD to develop rapid
    cycling, wide aperture magnets and power supplies
    will be completed before the start of the Project
  • gt Therefore the cost to perform this work is not

PD Option Cost Comparison
Cost Drivers
  • Synchrotron K
  • Civil Construction 64,710 (26.5)
  • Magnet System 40,841 (16.7)
  • Linac Improvements 34,564 (14.2)
  • Power Supply Network 30,921 ( 12.7)
  • Linac
  • Cryomodules 101,608 (31.9)
  • Civil Construction 81,168 (25.5)
  • Cryogenic System 28,589 ( 9.0)
  • RF Klystrons Distribution 25,171 ( 8.2)

Synchrotron Cost Drivers
Linac Cost Drivers
Ratio of SWF/MS
Includes contracted EDIA for Civil Engineering
Reality Checks
  • Main Injector Project vs. Linac PD Estimate
  • 230M gt escalated to 2004 273M PD 319M
  • Project Management gt 5.8 PD 7.8
  • Civil/Total Costs 44.8 PD 25.4
  • Technical Sys./Total Costs 49.4 PD 67
  • SWF/MS Costs 22.6 PD 38.8
  • SNS (estimate)
  • SNS Linac cost 550-600M (1.5 MW power)

  • There is a difference in the level of recent
    detail attention given to the two PD options
    and the approach taken when estimating. However,
    both options were initially given an across the
    board 30 contingency (for consistency reasons)
  • This way of estimating contingency for the
    overall project is somewhat arbitrary and does
    not reflect either the technical risk of the
    individual components nor the conservatism of the
  • The actual contingency analysis will do just that
  • Look at another methodology which focuses on a
    Range of Values for the cost of each option
    gt reflects the confidence/uncertainty of
    the estimate

Synchrotron Cost Estimate Analysis
Linac Cost Estimate Analysis
Range of Values
  • A fair and consistent cost comparison was
    performed between the two Proton Driver Options
    (Synchrotron SC Linac)
  • A Basis of Estimate was established for both cost
    estimates that draws on relevant experience with
    similar equipment both at FNAL and other Labs
  • This cost estimate will be a solid starting point
    for additional cost and schedule work that will
    be performed as the PD project moves forward
  • Range of Values for the cost estimate of a Proton
    Driver to be built at FNAL is approximately 400M
    to 500M (including contingency and GA)