Akira Yamamoto Marc Ross Nick Walker ILD Collaboration Meeting – 2011.5.23 Report from Project Managers 20.05.23, A. Yamamoto Report from Project Managers.

Report from Project Managers 1

Akira YamamotoMarc Ross

Nick Walker

ILD Collaboration Meeting – 2011.5.23

Report from Project Managers

20.05.23, A. Yamamoto


2

Outline

• Introduction – Where we are in TD phase and R&D?

• Accelerator Baseline Design (ABD) for TDR– SB2009 with the Top-Level Change Control (TLCC)

process complete,– Baseline to be established through Technical Design

Review (RDR) process, • Future scope toward 1 TeV upgrade

– Study in cooperation with Physics/Detector groups • Preparation for Technical Design Report

– Technical description and cost-estimate update


19-May-11 Pac Mtg - Taiwan

Global Design Effort 3

Technical Design Phase

AD&I studies

2009 2010

RDR ACD concepts

R&D Demonstrations

TDP Baseline Technical Design

2011 2012 2013

RDR Baseline

Beijing W

orkshop

TDR

TDP-1 TDP-2ChangeRequest

SB2009 evolve

change control processAAPPACPhysics

CER

N W

orkshop

R.L. Geng, 5/19-20,2011 ILC PAC @ Taipei 5

Global ILC Cavity Gradient YieldUpdated at ALCPG2011

Plot courtesy Camille Ginsburg of FNAL

Our Goal




7

MHI-09MHI-07

MHI-06MHI-05AES004 ACC011 Z108 Z109

FNAL DESY KEK

Comparison of cavity performance ave. Eacc,max VT : 30 MV/m1 cav : 27 MV/m7 cav : 26 MV/m

D

C

D : DetuneC : Coupler

D

Global Design Effort



FLASH 9 mA Test

Example Experimental Results

• Flat gradient solution achieved– 4.5 mA beam

• Characterisation of solution by scanning beam current– model benchmarking

Beam Current (mA)1 2 3 4 5

Grad

ient

cha

nge

over

400

us (%

)

0

-3

-5

+3

+5

Gradient Tilts vs Beam Current (ACC7)

Intended working

point

~2.5%



FLASH Progress: Energy Stability• 15 consecutive studies shifts

(120hrs), and with no downtime

• Time to restore 400us bunch-trains after beam-off studies: ~10mins

• Energy stability with beam loading over periods of hours: ~0.02%

• Individual cavity “tilts” equally stable

Energy stability over 3hrs with 4.5mA

~0.02% pk-pk

9 Feb 2011





• Mitigating Electron Cloud

• Simulations – electrodes; coating and/or grooving vacuum pipe

• Demonstration at CESR critical tests

Cesr-TA: R&D for Mitigating e-Cloud

19-May-11 Pac Mtg - Taiwan Global Design Effort 12

CesrTA - Wiggler Observations

0.002”radius

Electrode a best performance



Field Region Baseline Mitigation Recommendation

Alternatives for Further

InvestigationDrift* TiN Coating Solenoid Windings NEG Coating

Dipole Grooves with TiN Coating

Antechambers for power loads and photoelectron control

R&D into the use of clearing electrodes.

Quadrupole*

TiN Coating R&D into the use of clearing electrodes or grooves with TiN coating

Wiggler Clearing Electrodes

Antechambers for power loads and photoelectron control

Grooves with TiN Coating

Proposed ILC Mitigation Scheme


14

Interim Report in printing

• Front Page

Contents1. Introduction and overview2. Superconducting RF

Technology3. Accelerator system R&D4. Accelerator design and

integration5. Conventional facilities

and siting6. Toward TDR



15

Outline









16

Accelerator Design & Integration• SB2009 Design Studies

– on-going• Cost Constraint

– ‘Global’ Value Engineering

• Towards an agreed-upon baseline for the TDR– Top-Level Change

Control Process(TLCC)

– Communication with Physics & Detector groups

– Technical Design Review (TD-Rev)

RDR SB2009



17

SB2009 Working Assumptions1. 31.5 MV/m average accelerating

gradient2. Single tunnel for Main Linacs3. Undulator-based e+ source relocation

to end of e- Main Linac4. Reduced beam-power parameter set5. 3.2km circumference Damping Ring6. Singe-stage bunch compressor7. Central region integration

Seven Working Assumptions put forth in original SB2009 Proposal (Dec. 2009)

http://ilc-edmsdirect.desy.de/ilc-edmsdirect/file.jsp?edmsid=*900425








18



to end of e- Main Linac4. Reduced beam-power parameter set,

3.2km circumference Damping Ring

6. Singe-stage bunch compressor7. Central region integration


5 Taken forward as part of Top-Level Change Control process: Combined to Four Themes








19



to end of e- Main Linac4. Reduced beam-power parameter set

3.2km circumference Damping Ring

6. Singe-stage bunch compressor7. Central region integration


Possible impact on Physics & Detector








20

TLCC Process

keywords: open, transparent

1. Accelerating Gradient2. Single-tunnel (HLRF)3. Low-Power Parameter4. Positron source location

1st BAWKEK 7-10th Sept. 20102nd BAWSLAC 18-21st Jan. 2011

Proposals submitted to director


APPROVED


21

TLCC-1: Gradient

• Average accelerating gradient of ≥31.5 MV/m Q0 ≥ 1010

• ≤ ±20% Operational Gradient Spread (new)– Acceptance Test ≥ 0.8×35 = 28 MV/m yield improvement– Assumes (some) cavities will achieve 1.2×35 = 42 MV/m– 10% margin for assembly degradation, LLRF control etc.– 31.5 MV/m avg. Eacc in linac (25 ≤ Eacc ≤ 38 MV/m)

• Primary impact on baseline design is RF power capacity– Additional 10-15% required (reduced hRFbeam)– Operational challenges for LLRF (9mA programme)– Increased cost, but $(1% Eacc)/$(1% RF Power) ~ 4


R.L. Geng, 5/19-20,2011 ILC PAC @ Taipei 22

Global ILC Cavity Gradient YieldUpdated at ALCPG2011

Plot courtesy Camille Ginsburg of FNAL

Our Goal

Effective yieldImproved


23

TLCC-2 Single Tunnel RDR

Backup solution

TDR Baseline

• Removal of ~25 km service tunnel– central region (BDS/sources)

retains service tunnel• Two variants for RF

Power solution– Distributed RF sources

(DRFS) (mountainous region)

– Klystron Cluster Scheme (KCS) “Flat-land” site

– Both require R&D• Considerations of

– Operations /installation– Availability– Safety egress

• Back-up solution– TESLA Tech. option in single

tunnel (e.g. XFEL-like)


SB2009


24

TLCC-3 Low Beam Power• Reduce number of bunches per pulse by 50%

– 2600 1300• Allows to

– Reduce the circumference of DR from 6.43.2 km– Reduce the installed RF power by 30-50%*– Major cost saving

• Recover luminosity by more aggressive beam-beam– stronger focusing at IP– possibility of using travelling focus scheme– Top 30% luminosity is high-risk (compared to RDR)

• *Solutions differ for baseline RF– KCS: 6.0 mA current, 1.6 ms RF pulse– DRFS: 4.5 mA current, 2.2 ms RF pulse

• Recovery (risk mitigation) / upgrade – Restore (install) RF power (modulators/klystrons)– Allow possibility to construct a second DR for e+

• 3rd ring in tunnel

CFS support in baseline to accommodate possible restoration



25

TLCC-4: Positron Source Relocation• Relocate undulator-based source at end of main electron

linac– RDR location: nominal 150 GeV point

• Rationale:– Consolidation of sources in central “campus” region (environment etc.)– Large energy overhead for driving source for Ecm>300 GeV– No need to decelerate the beam for Ecm<300 GeV– Further integration with stand-alone conventional source (AUX source)

for commissioning/availability.• Requires implementation of 10 Hz alternate pulse scheme for Ecm<300 GeV– Make use of reduce linac power to have separate pulse to generate

positrons– Implications for RF sources and Damping Rings

• cost increase– Some additional transfer lines and pulsed-magnet systems required in

central region (not incl. in cost estimate)



26

Luminosity Containment Effort in SB2009

• Evaluated by J. Brau, (report from ILC-PAC, May 20, 2011)



27

Further consolidation of TDR baseline

• Top-level baseline decisions have now been made– Large ticket items (either cost or performance)– Mandatory interaction with Physics & Detector– Requiring Director sign-off

• Many next-level detail decisions still required for TDR baseline– Many things have changed/evolved from the RDR– Level of complexity and impact varies substantially– None are deemed to be as “high-level” as TLCC

themes to be managed with PM’s responsibility 20.05.23, A. Yamamoto


28

Further consolidation of TDR baseline

• Approach: continue successful format of the TLCC-BAW plenary workshops– Baseline Technical Reviews (BTR)– Project Manager driven

• no need for Director sign-off, unless…– Accelerator Integration & Design team orientated– Maintain strong involvement with Physics &

Detector groups– Generate design documentation (ILC-EDMS)

• in preparation for cost estimation• in preparation for TDR writing


An Industrialization Model and Responsibility

• Lab: responsible for perofrmance• Industry: responsible build-to-print

manufacturing

20.05.23, A. Yamamoto 29

Manufacturer / industry

ILC host-laboratory

Hub-Laboratory: A Hub-Laboratory : …

Hub-Laboratory: B Reg. Hub-Laboratory: E

Hub-Laboratory: CRegional Hub-Laboratory : D-centered in cooperation/consortium with other regional laboratories

Performance specification agreed w/ MOU

Build-to-print specification in Contract


2nd Visiting Companies in Progress

Date Company Place Technical sbject1 2/8 Hitachi Tokyo (JP) Cavity/Cryomodule

2 2/8 Toshiba Yokohana (JP) Cavity/Cryomodule, SCM

3 2/9 MHI Kobe (JP) Cavity / Cryomodule

4 2/9 Tokyo Denkai Tokyo (JP) Material (Nb) 5 2/18 OTIC NingXia (CN) Material (Nb, NbTi, Ti)

6 3/3 Zanon Via Vicenza (IT) Cavity/Cryomodule

7 3/4 RI Koeln (DE) Cavity

8 3/14, (4/8) AES Medford, NY (US) Cavity

9 3/15, (4/7) Niowave Lansing, MI (US) Cavity/Cryomodule

10 4/6 PAVAC Vancouver (CA) Cavity

11 4/25 ATI Wah-Chang Albany, OR (US) Material (Nb, Nb-Ti, Ti)12 4/27 Plansee Ruette (AS) Material (Nb, Nb-Ti, Ti)13 5/24 SDMS Sr. Romans (FR) Cavity14 7/6 Heraeus Hanau (DE) Material (Nb, Nb-Ti, Ti)

20.05.23, A. Yamamoto Report from Project Managers

30


The 2nd workshop on SCRF Technology and Industrialization for the ILC

as a satellite meeting of SRF 2011• Date: July 24, 2011• Place: Chicago • Agenda:

– Introduction – Reports from SCRF cavity/cryomodule industry– Reports from SC material vendor– Comments from Regional Hub-laboratory – Discussions on the ILC SCRF industrialization model

• Note:– Open for everybody, – Industrial participation anticipated

20.05.23, A. Yamamoto 31


Baseline Technical Reviews (BTW)

• Typically 2 days for each accelerator system– 5 days specially for e-source, RTML, BDS/MDI at DESY

• Plenary (no parallel sessions)• Open meetings (but working environment)

Damping Ring 7-8 July 2011 INFN FrascatiSources, RTML incl. BC, BDS/MDI

24-28 October 2011 DESY

Main Linacs (SCRF) 19-20 January 2012 KEKCFS/Global February 2012 TBC FNAL/CERN

20.05.23, A. Yamamoto 33


34

Baseline Technical Reviews

• Goal: document and sign-off Baseline design elements– Includes review of on-going (and needed) R&D– detained design documentation structured into ILC-EDMS WBS– cost review

• Work is on-going via remote conferencing (monthly AD&I meetings)– Workshop (BTR) is the end result

Damping Ring 7-8 July 2011 INFN FrascatiSources, RTML incl. BC, BDS/MDI

24-28 October 2011 DESY

Main Linacs (SCRF) 19-20 January 2012 KEKCFS/Global February 2012 TBC FNAL/CERN



35

Outline









36

Toward Upgrade: from 500 to 1000 GeV

2.2 km

1.3

km10.8 km

1.1

km

BDSMain Linac

e+ s

rc

bunc

h co

mp.

<26 km ?(site length <52 km ?)

Main Linac<Gcavity> = 31.5 MV/m Geff ≈ 22.7 MV/m(fill fact. = 0.72)

IP

central region

<10.8 km ?

Snowmass 2005 baseline recommendation for TeV upgrade: Gcavity = 36 MV/m ⇒ 9.6 km (VT ≥ 40 MV/m)

Based on use of low-loss or re-entrant cavity shapes


ultra-high gradient R&D>2012


37

Efficiency and Power to be further studied

effic

ienc

y %

Tota

l AC

Pow

er M

W

Gradient MV/m Gradient MV/m

half-power (SB2009)

half-power (SB2009)

Simples scaling – needs more detailed analysis

nb 4 Hz rep. rate



38

1 TeV Tentative ParametersCurrent “official” parameter set in EDMS*.

Should still be considered tentative, pending review and further study.

Understanding (and updating) these parameters is our job for the next ~6 months.

* EDMS Doc ID: D*925325http://ilc-edmsdirect.desy.de/ilc-edmsdirect/file.jsp?edmsid=*925325&fileClass=ExcelShtX

To be discussed !



39

Outline









40

TD Phase Key Focus (beyond R&D)

Highest Priority

(new estimate)High Priority

(updated estimate)RDR update

Documentation

(scaled estimate)

CFS requirementscritical input



41

CFS Study in progress at KEKReported by M. Miyahara and A. Enomoto at KEK LC office meeting, May 23, today, in Japan


RDR Double tunnelwith TBM

DRFSSingle tunnelwith NATM


42

Planning for the TDP 2

* Baseline Technical Reviews We are here!

2010 2011 2012

Risk Mitigating R&D

Re-Baseline (CC)

AD&I (TLCC)

AD&I (BTR*)

TeV upgrade study

Update VALUE estimate

Tech. Risk Assessment

PIP

Write TDR report(s)


Plan for Technical Design Report

Part 0: Executive Summary– An overview for a less technical audience, such as

decision makers and other branches of science.Part 1: TD phase R&D

– Extension/update of the Interim Report (IR), but more conclusive

Part 2: Accelerator Design Report – Update of the accelerator design.

Part 3: Risk analysis and post 2012 work– Remaining technical risk identified should

emphasize the future R&D programme,




44

Summary• Four proposed changes to baseline now formally

accepted– TLCC process complete– Culmination of 18 months of work

• AD&I efforts focused on next-level of baseline detail BTRs (BDS/MDI BTR at DESY, Oct. 24-28)– Comprehensive review of TDR baseline– R&D status (TDR relevant)– Cost and Documentation!

• TeV upgrade study – now gaining momentum– Increasing emphasis LHC!

• Preparation for Technical Design Report– To progress through Webex TAG meeting and BTRs,– To complete by the end of 2012



45

Backup


Global Plan for SCRF R&D

Year 07 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Phase TDP-1 TDP-2Cavity Gradient in v. test to reach 35 MV/m Yield 50% Yield 90%Cavity-string to reach 31.5 MV/m, with one-cryomodule

Global effort for string assembly and test(DESY, FNAL, INFN, KEK)

System Test with beamacceleration

FLASH (DESY) , NML (FNAL) STF2 (KEK, test start in 2013)

Preparation for Industrialization

Production Technology R&D

Communication with industry:

2009: 1st step: Visit Venders (2009) 2010: 2nd step: Organize Workshop (2010) 2011: 3rd step: Send specification & receive response

GDE-PMs, 110519c 49Preparing Industrialization

We are here

Global Plan for SCRF R&D

Year 07 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Phase TDP-1 TDP-2Cavity Gradient in v. test to reach 35 MV/m Yield 50% Yield 90%Cavity-string to reach 31.5 MV/m, with one-cryomodule

Global effort for string assembly and test(DESY, FNAL, INFN, KEK)

System Test with beamacceleration

FLASH (DESY) , NML (FNAL) STF2 (KEK, test start in 2013)

Preparation for Industrialization

Production Technology R&D

Communication with industry:

2009: 1st step: Visit Vendor (2009) 2010: 2nd step: Organize Workshop (2010) 2011: 3rd step: Send specification & receive response

20.05.23, A. Yamamoto 56Report from Project Managers

An Industrialization Model• Industry-based Cavity Production

– Manufactured by companies,• shared fraction of 20 % ~ 100 %

– According to ‘build-to-print specification’ , satisfying• Minimum acceptance criteria and inspections, • Specific process,

– Delivery with no test for the gradient performance • Laboratory-based Cavity Performance Test

– Collaborating laboratories should be responsible for the cavity gradient performance,

• As a deliverable in collaboration between / among laboratories, – Multiple laboratories’ collaboration are important – Delivery from laboratory to (host) laboratory with

performance tested,

20.05.23, A. Yamamoto 57Report from Project Managers

Possible Models of Industrialization Possible work sharing

Commercially supplied, relying on market

Region/ Laboratory responsible

Notes, constraint

# of participants 1: possible , ≥ 2: desired ≥2: most likely

Cavity: Nb and raw material Yes

Main cell, He-Jacke Yes with care High Pressure Code

End-group, HOM etc. Yes

Input Coupler, Tuner Yes

Surface Process Yes /Possible Yes/Possible

Integration Most Likely High Pressure Code

Cavity Perform.. Test Most Likely Lab should be responsible

Cryomodule: Vacuum vessel Yes

C.M. component Yes with care High P. code

Cavity-CM Assembly ≥2: Most likely1: special case

Cryomodule test Most likely Lab should be responsible



Technical Management Scheme

• Lab responsible performance, • Company responsible for ‘build-to-print manufacturing

20.05.23, A. Yamamoto 59

ILC host-laboratory

Regional hub-Laboratory: - Responsible for performance - Hosting cold test & performance

Cavity industrial R&D, and Production partly hosted at Labo-site: Pilot-plant Mother plant

Cavity production at company-site

Cavity production at company site

Cryomodule/cavity assembly hosted at lab-site, and contracted work by Company

Cryomodule production at company site

Cryomodule production at company site

Lab-oriented

Company-oriented

Regional hub-lab.


Cost-Study Status and Further Plan

• Cost-study in Communication with industry– In progress, and more than half companies responding to our

‘request for information’, and we are getting very important information for our further study,

– We are getting the hint that SCRF cavity costs are ……, ………………..

– We are planning to organize the 2nd stage of communication by summer, 2011, to prepare for our own final stage study in autumn,

• Cost study in Communication with Laboratories– Information given by DESY/EXFEL team lead by H. Weise has

been critically important, valuable, and acknowledged,– Further communication with potential regional hub-laboratories will

be important to develop a whole scope of the industrialization model..

20.05.23, A. Yamamoto 60

Confidential


Cavity Factory Layout StudyAssuming KEK to host a ‘Leading Factory’

A proposal for Hub-Lab taking roles of:– Industrial Technology development center in R&D stage, extendable for further

industrial R&D beyond TD Phase (for example, scoping 1 TeV upgrade), – ‘Leading factory’ as ‘mother plant’ to lead industrialization effort:

• Production capacity of ~ ¼ of 20 % (~ 150 cavities/year, max.)

Currently19m x 14m clean room

Layout study in progress

Building area: ~ 60 x 30 m

20.05.23, A. Yamamoto 61


Cryomodule Assembly Factory Layout

• Production: 20 % fraction, 6 years• Factory area: ~ 200 x 50 m

20.05.23, A. Yamamoto 62



• Timescale: Produce final reports end of 2012– Technical Design (TDR)– Project Implementation (PIP)

• First goal: Technical Design (TDR)– SCRF – S0 gradient; S1 Global Tests continue past 2012– Detailed technical design studies from new baseline – Updated VALUE estimate and schedule. – Remaining critical R&D and technology demonstration (CesrTA

complete; ATF-2; FLASH; etc)

• Second Goal: Project Implementation Plan (PIP)– Studies of governance; siting solicitation and site preparations;

manufacturing; etc

Technical Design: Phase 2



Essential Elements of TDP• Optimize the design for cost / performance / risk

– Top down approach got SB2009; value engineering; risk mitigation

• Key Supporting R&D Program (priorities)– High Gradient R&D - globally coordinated program to

demonstrate gradient for TDR by 2010 with 90%yield– Electron Cloud Mitigation – Electron Cloud tests at Cornell to

establish mitigation; determine mitigtion plan; verify one damping ring is sufficient and size.

– Final Beam Optics – Tests at ATF-2 at KEK

• GOAL – Bring us ready to propose a solid and defendable “construction project” to world’s governments any time after 2012

Plan for TDR Costing

• TDR will have new, current 2012 estimates for cavities & cryomodules, KCS, DRFS, and many elements of conventional facilities, especially for Conventional Facilities for Americas and Asia



See Garbincius for Costing Plan

20.05.23, A. Yamamoto Report from Project Managers 66

ILC: Future after 2012


CYTechnical Design Report completeBaseline established

2011 2012 2013 2014 20162010

ILC

2015

Technical design & R&D program

2017 2018

ILC possible timeline

SRF system tests

TDR reviews

Site EOI’s

Cost Estimating

Decision to proceed

Site/host established

Project Implementation Plan complete XFEL operation

LHC

Physics Run 1 Physics Run 2Interconnect repair

Existence of low-lying SUSY known

Higgs energy scale known

timegap


CYTechnical Design Report completeBaseline established

2011 2012 2013 2014 20162010

ILC

2015

Technical design & R&D program

2017 2018

ILC possible timeline

SRF system tests

TDR reviews

Site EOI’s

Cost Estimating

Decision to proceed

Site/host established

Project Implementation Plan complete XFEL operation

LHC

Physics Run 1 Physics Run 2Interconnect repair

Existence of low-lying SUSY known

Higgs energy scale known

timegap


Pre-project ILC Organization

• GDE will have successfully completed its mandate after TDR + reviews (mid-2013 at latest)

• ILCSC / ICFA considering transition organization

http://cpdg.kek.jp (cpdg username and password).

http://cpdg.kek.jp/


Possible GDE program - post 2012

• We will support a core team to maintain corporate knowledge and be available for TDR reviews

• We plan to keep the SRF industrial base active at a minimally useful level and engaged in pre-production (value) engineering.

• It’s likely that positron production will benefit from R&D past 2012.

• It is likely that machine-detector interface activities will need to continue. This will help to facilitate the detector program.


GDE - Technically-driven post 2012 program

We are discussing possible major themes to guide this R&D development program. Examples including R&D toward a 1TeV, either directly or as an upgrade, emphasizing achieving higher gradient (energy) economically.

•SCRF Systems tests; Mass production; Value Engineering, etc.

•Design evolution: 1 TeV; Positrons; R&D toward major technical advances

•Must preserve GDE-like global decision making and coordination in new pre-project organization


72

Final Remarks• ILC accelerator R&D and design evolution is on track

for producing the ILC Technical Design Report at end of 2012, including a Project Implementation Plan

• We are developing our scope and work plan for developing the TDR. We have presented our first ideas for the content of the TDR deliverable

• Planning for ILC development beyond 2012 is very important. It will be very challenging to maintain a viable forward-looking effort until a project decision is made.

• LHC will open the TeV energy frontier with significant results on the 2012 timescale. The resulting physics results will begin to point the way to the future of a linear collider.



The ILC SCRF Cavity

- Achieve high gradient (35MV/m); develop multiple vendors; make cost effective, etc

- Focus is on high gradient; production yields; cryogenic losses; radiation; system performance

Global Plan for ILC Gradient R&D



New baseline gradient:Vertical acceptance: 35 MV/m average, allowing ±20% spread (28-42 MV/m)Operational: 31.5 MV/m average, allowing ±20% spread (25-38 MV/m)



Cavity Gradient Milestone Achieved

2010Milestone

TDRGoal

See Geng

• Toward TDR goal• Field emission; mechanical

polishing• Other progress

Scope of TDR and supporting work (2)

• Part 2: Design reportEquivalent (replacement) for the RDR. May well

draw on RDR text were it has not significantly changed, although much will need to be updated.1. Introduction2. Overview, layout and parameters3. Main linac4. Sources5. Damping Rings6. RTML / bunch compressors7. BDS/MDI8. CFS9. TeV upgrade path10.Cost and schedule



Scope of TDR and supporting work (3)

• Part 3: Risk analysis and post 2012 workIdentified remaining technical risk should support

the future R&D programme, in the same way that the identified RDR risk set the scope of the TDP work.

• R&D : SCRF - ultra-high gradient (relates to TeV upgrade); SCRF System tests; Positron source related, etc

• Project engineering : Design for manufacture; value engineering; site development (detailed CFS engineering)

• Technical (Performance) Risk Analysis: Where are the extrapolations? How much is the extrapolation? What is the risk of not achieving extrapolation? What is the impact of failure? What is the mitigation strategy?

• Part 4: Implementation Plan19-May-11 Pac Mtg - Taiwan

Global Design Effort \79

Akira Yamamoto Marc Ross Nick Walker ILD Collaboration Meeting – 2011.5.23 Report from Project Managers 20.05.23, A. Yamamoto Report from Project Managers.

Documents