1. 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

2. 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

3. 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
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

4. Choice of half-length vs. full length coils
Test of a pre-series prototype of the IR Quad will be :
Need to define all interfaces, but HL-LHC TDR is in
CERN resources are focused on LS1 in
US resources are focused on technology demonstration in
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

5. 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?

6. 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
Integration of CERN and LARP collaboration
Establish organization, communication lines
Address limited overlap of work schedules
Fully incorporate HQ/LHQ experience

7. IR Quadrupole Development Plan