MQXF Planning Paolo Fessia, Frederic Savary, Ezio Todesco, Lucio Rossi - CERN Mike Anerella, Peter Wanderer - BNL Giorgio Ambrosio, Mark Kaducak - FNAL Joseph Rasson, GianLuca Sabbi - LBNL

DOE Guidance on Project Planning Assume successful completion of the technology demonstration by LARP, according to agreed upon plans Focus on the next phase: development of final Quad design, short model and prototype Separate prototyping phase from construction: Prototype to be developed through LARP, with some organizational adjustments as needed and strong CERN involvement/contributions Construction project to be initiated at a later time, when HL-LHC specs are defined, technology demonstration is completed, and some proof of the final design is available Develop a credible plan (technical, schedule, resources, US/CERN responsibilities) compatible with installation during LS3

Project Planning Core group with members from US Labs and CERN CERN Paolo Fessia, Frederic Savary, Ezio Todesco, Lucio Rossi BNL Mike Anerella, Peter Wanderer FNAL Giorgio Ambrosio, Mark Kaducak LBNL Joseph Rasson, GianLuca Sabbi Open meetings and documents posted on LARP server https://plone.uslarp.org/MagnetRD/TDWG/ Activities: Analyzed four cases (two apertures and half or full-length coils): Assess feasibility, critical milestones Contributions from US and CERN Conditions and preparations for realistic backup options

Choice of half-length vs. full length coils Test of a pre-series prototype of the IR Quad will be 2017-18: Need to define all interfaces, but HL-LHC TDR is in 2015-16 CERN resources are focused on LS1 in 2013-14 US resources are focused on technology demonstration in 2013-14 To install in 2022, significant commitments needed before prototype test For a factor of 2 length increase from LQ/LHQ, risk is too high A fall back option would require running a second option in parallel, but the schedule is already resource limited A simplified “fast track” 8 m model was considered but discarded For a new aperture, a short model program is needed For L > 4 m, new infrastructure is needed In the half-length coil scenario, we can confidently move forward based on 120mm aperture LHQ and 150 mm aperture short model

Implications of half vs. full-length coils Loss in performance (integrated gradient for given nominal gradient) Depends on the details of the design, range may be 5-15% Impact from a loss of effective length of ~50 cm seems acceptable Shorter units provide technical opportunities in several areas Materials cost are similar and in some case may be lower, but labor cost increases due to the higher number of coils Production schedule is kept the same by increasing the number of lines – several sets of 4 m infrastructure are already available Detailed analysis needed to estimate actual difference in cost How effort scales with length of coil: look at individual elements Larger production sample is intrinsically more robust and can be exploited in many ways: number of spares, sorting etc. Hybrid scenario with Q1/Q3 as half-length, Q2 as full length?

Short Model Development Plans Discussion focus #1: CERN and US contributions: Common tasks: conceptual design, magnet assembly and test LARP tasks: cable design/fabrication, structure fabrication CERN tasks: coil tooling and fabrication Discussion focus #2: time to first test First HQ was tested ~21 months after “phase 1” aperture decision Several performance issues – may or may not be related Our current schedule shows ~36 months (5/2012 to 5/2015) Reflects limited resource availability in 2012-14 Integration of CERN and LARP collaboration Establish organization, communication lines Address limited overlap of work schedules Fully incorporate HQ/LHQ experience

IR Quadrupole Development Plan