Linac Coherent Light Source Project ETC 18 September 2007 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – Linac Coherent Light Source Project ETC 18 September 2007 PowerPoint presentation | free to view - id: 15d26a-MzAzN



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

Linac Coherent Light Source Project ETC 18 September 2007

Description:

Weeklong meeting at ANL 24-28 September 2007 ... September ... 3 July 2007 12 September 2007. Beam Transport Hall 2 weeks behind 0 weeks on sched. ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:49
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 32
Provided by: JohnGa55
Category:

less

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

Title: Linac Coherent Light Source Project ETC 18 September 2007


1
Linac Coherent Light Source Project ETC 18
September 2007
  • Background
  • Proposed Baseline
  • 7/2007 review responses
  • Contingency
  • Commissioning

2
Key Actions - Project Control
  • Cost Growth in Civil Construction
  • Turner instructed to solicit bids separately for
  • Beam Path (Tunnels, Near Hall, Far Hall, Utility
    Plant
  • Central Lab Office Complex (CLOC)
  • Encountered unfavorable bidding conditions on
    Beam Path
  • Value engineering with Jacobs and Turner
  • Award beam path to far hall
  • Authorize Turner to proceed 8/2006
  • Removed CLOC from scope of Project
  • Consumed contingency
  • With SLAC help, identified space that could be
    economically rehabilitated to accommodate 160
    LCLS staff

3
Issues - Civil Construction
  • Bids for all civil construction were very
    unfavorable
  • Projected cost of Turner subcontracts summed to
    100.5M ( incl. 2-story CLOC)
  • Only 67.3M was budgeted
  • Project had sufficient contingency to award up to
    85.3M
  • CLOC Removed from WBS, replaced by renovated
    space
  • Awards revised estimates for reduced scope-
    84.5M

4
Effect of Continuing Resolution
  • Budget authorization received in April 2007
  • Uncertain budget forced schedule variance (linac,
    undulator), further reducing contingency
  • FY2007 Project Budget Authority Reduced 8M
  • 106M ? 101M TEC
  • 16M ? 13M OPC
  • No restoration until 2009
  • Contingency through 2008 not sufficient to
    preserve original schedule

5
Response to Directed Change
  • Reschedule acquisition/installation so that Far
    Experiment Hall Contents installed in 2009/2010
  • Compensates 2007 budget cut
  • Resume construction/commissioning of FEL
  • Install Near Hall Infrastructure, Initial AMO
    experiment close to original schedule
  • 3/2009 ?7/2009 early finish

6
Project Baseline Proposed
BaselineMay 2005
Change September 2007
  • TEC 315M, TPC 379M
  • CD-4 3/09 Start of Operations
  • Characterize x-ray flux _at_ 1.5 Angstroms, in front
    end enclosure (FEE)
  • Detect X-rays in the Far Experiment Hall
  • TEC 352M, TPC 420M
  • Level 2 DOE milestone 7/09 Start Near Hall Ops
  • Characterize x-ray flux at 1.5 Angstroms, in the
    Front-end enclosure
  • CD-4 7/2010 Project Complete
  • Detect X-rays in the Far Experiment Hall

7
Lehman Review Recommendations
  • Accelerator Physics
  • Improve the interface between all groups (SLAC,
    ANL, and LLNL) responsible for construction,
    installation, and commissioning of the undulator
    systems (September 2007).
  • Focused effort to improve communications
  • Weeklong meeting at ANL 24-28 September 2007
  • Assignment of SLAC personnel to undulator
    coordination
  • Jose Chan, ME CAM
  • Carl Rago, ME Undulator systems integration
  • Don Schafer SLAC undulator engineering support
  • Injector/Linac
  • Re-evaluate the schedule contingency for LTU
    activity
  • Done Adequate schedule contingency in proposed
    baseline
  • Determine cost/schedule/risk impact of removal of
    beam diagnostics with respect to the FEL
    commissioning.
  • Beam position monitors tested, functional at beam
    charge of 0.2 nC or more
  • Gun readily produces 1.0 nC
  • Risk assessed, severity considered low
  • Profile measurement in sector 28
  • Re-evaluate cost to completion.
  • Done

8
Lehman Review Recommendations - Undulator
  • Fabricate prototypes of each back-up option
    Vacuum Chamber by end August 2007
  • Chamber Prototype progress evaluation will be
    complete in
  • September
  • Select the best option from the completed
    prototypes to move into production by
    mid-September 2007.
  • Aluminum extrusion meets roughness requirements,
    now in baseline
  • Evaluate the potential impact of any anticipated
    sub-specification performance from the selected
    chamber option. Include these impacts in the risk
    registry with any mitigation strategies and
    potential costs as soon as feasible in no case
    later than the next DOE review.
  • Done
  • Finish achieved in prototype is satisfactory,
    does not dominate resistive wall

9
Lehman Review Recommendations - Undulator
  • Provide adequate support to ensure placement of
    procurement contracts for RF-BPM cavities on or
    before end September 2007
  • RFBPM procurements underway
  • Develop the Physics Requirements Document for
    Beam loss monitors to meet project needs by end
    August 2007
  • Comprehensive requirements document has been
    drafted, reviewed. Still in revision
  • Develop a revised estimate for the BLM system as
    soon as feasible, no later than the next DOE
    review.
  • 500K budget is reasonable

10
Lehman Review Recommendations
  • Photon Beam Systems
  • The commissioning plans should be reviewed to
    ensure proper staffing and schedule is allocated
    for both LLNL and LCLS staff
  • Done
  • Bring in and/or visit with experts in mirror
    vacuum tank design from other light sources
    (national and international) to critique the
    proposed design of the mirror motions and drive
    scheme, specifically to determine if the design
    will meet the very stringent pointing/stability
    requirements, before finalizing mechanical/vacuum
    hardware for the hard X-ray mirrors. Also explore
    the capability for in-situ optimization of hard
    X-ray mirror figure before the design is frozen.
  • In progress
  • First review this week
  • Controls
  • Insure that all costs-to-completeincluding any
    newly identified costs not related to the
    Continuing Resolution of 2007are covered in the
    proposed cost re-baseline.
  • Done

11
Lehman Review Recommendations Conventional
Facilities
  • Continue to monitor Turners schedule recovery
    plan

  • 3 July 2007 12 September 2007
  • Beam Transport Hall 2 weeks behind 0
    weeks on sched.
  • Undulator hall 6 weeks behind 0 weeks
    on sched.
  • Building 3.1 8 weeks behind 5 weeks
    behind
  • Beam dump 17 weeks behind 3 weeks ahead
  • Front End Encl. 20 weeks behind 2 weeks
    behind
  • NEH 1 week ahead 2 weeks ahead
  • Access Tunnel 12 weeks behind 4 weeks
    behind
  • Far Expt Hall 15 weeks behind 4 weeks
    behind
  • CUP 14 weeks behind 8 weeks behind
  • Investigate the impact to the project of a
    failure to achieve the first joint occupancy date
    of December 2007. Consider the impact of an up to
    three-month delay of joint occupancy.
  • Done no effect on start of NEH ops or CD4
  • 1st Critical path runs through cabling in FEE
  • 2nd critial path runs thru 2008 funding limit

12
Lehman Review Recommendations Conventional
Facilities (continued)
  • Re-evaluate the cost estimate for the remaining
    work not under contract.
  • Done Basis of estimate is in-house assessment
    of conceptual design
  • Validation/check by independent estimator under
    contract to LCLS
  • Retain a contingency allowance of between 30 and
    50 percent for all CF work for which a final
    design and an accompanying cost estimate are not
    in hand, at the time of this review. Retain that
    level of contingency until contract award.
  • 60 contingency in the bottoms-up contingency
    assessment for Bldg 751, Bldg 28, Far Hall
    hutches
  • Additional 10 due to complexity of underground
    work
  • Prepare a pessimistic worst-case scenario for
    funding unsettled and future claims arising from
    the Turner contract. Include these considerations
    in contingency planning for the project
    re-baseline. It is essential to avoid forced
    de-scoping of any remaining project work.
  • Claim in process - estimated impact 2.25M
    (2009)

13
Lehman Review Recommendations Conventional
Facilities (continued)
  • Continue to examine and implement proactively all
    possible factors necessary to achieve an
    exemplary safety record on the remaining work.
  • Safe work observation walk-arounds on Turner site
  • Use care and maintain some financial flexibility
    in the latter part of FY 2008.
  • Close monitoring of 2008 contingency utilization

14
Lehman Review Recommendations
Cost/Schedule/Funding
  • The proposed baseline should be re-evaluated to
    incorporate updates to the underlying detailed
    cost estimate and sequencing of the activity
    schedule required to manage the revised approach
    to project completion and transition to
    operations. This will incorporate knowledge about
    the detailed work to complete that have resulted
    from design maturation and review, emerging
    market conditions, and additional experience and
    interaction with the vendor base.
  • Done
  • Installation
  • Cabling
  • Civil construction
  • Controls for x-ray beams
  • Contingency is sufficient
  • Early integration with the user community is a
    requirement of the project. An interface
    milestone with the scientific program should be
    clearly defined and placed into the baseline
    schedule to clarify what capability will be
    available to begin the process of integrating
    experimental activities into the schedule prior
    to full facility capability.
  • Milestone for start of NEH operations has been
    incorporated
  • Upcoming LCLS user meeting
  • Rules of access for Instrument teams, general
    users, new instruments

15
Lehman Review Recommendations
Cost/Schedule/Funding
  • The method of execution should be reviewed to
    ensure that the schedule is sequenced
    appropriately. The FY 2008 funding level is a
    significant constraint to providing an initial
    RD capability in FY 2009. The project should be
    carefully organized to ensure that all work
    required deliver the initial capability defined
    above can be completed free of undue risk to
    completion of the project as a whole.
  • Budget constraints, contingency and decision
    dates are identified
  • Some margin for avoiding impact to AMO experiment
  • Late starts, defined for X-ray diagnostics and
    AMO experiment
  • The contingency estimate to accompany the revised
    baseline should be derived using a graded risk
    approach that incorporates both endogenous risk
    in the baseline estimate and exogenous risk from
    outside the project. This will provide a risk
    management pool that is both reliable in
    derivation and robust in scale to deliver the
    project with a reasonable level of risk at an
    acceptable cost. This estimate should include an
    analysis of the impact of schedule delays at key
    points in the project that could have an impact
    on the overall completion date or interim
    deliverables to the user community.
  • Contingency estimate is based on
  • Bottoms-up estimates according to PMD 1.1-021 (
    arithmetic sum is 27.7M, 19 )
  • Potential contingency needs identified in Risk
    Registry
  • Crystal Ball analysis
  • Supports 22 (33M) contingency on ETC

16
Contingency
  • Adequate for Project overall
  • Contingency through 2008 is very tight - 8M
  • Additional 4M can be achieved by delay of some
    installations
  • 12M contingency on cost to end of FY2008
  • Reduced commissioning time for FEL prior to NEH
    operations
  • Close management of contingency is essential
  • Status against proposed baseline as of 11/2007
    and 12/2007 will provide crucial information for
    contingency analysis

17
Cost to Go, Thru 2008
18
Contingency Management Options - 1
  • Delay installations to start of FY2009
  • Undulator
  • Beam Dump
  • Front End Enclosure
  • gt3M moved out of FY2008
  • Just-in-time for AMO installation
  • No FEL commissioning 10/2008-3/2009
  • Two-shift installation to reduce lost
    commissioning to recover commissioning time
  • Decision Point 12/2007

19
Contingency Management Options - 2
  • Delay CF activities in access tunnel and Far Hall
  • Concrete invert slab
  • MEP minimum for fire safety
  • 0.5M-1M reduction in FY2008
  • Re-mobilize in FY2009
  • 1.5M increase in FY2009
  • Decision point 11/2007

20
Contingency Mgmt X-ray delays
In case of FY08 crunch, one could
  • Delay some FEE controls work (150k)
  • Decide soon could delay from early to late FY08
  • Risk of delay in FEE operation
  • Delay some NEH controls work (150k)
  • Could delay from late FY08 to FY09
  • Risk of delay in AMO experiment operation
  • Delay beam delivery to NEH (200k)
  • No beam in NEH until FY10

21
Contingency Mgmt X-ray speedups
If more FY08 funds become available, one could
  • Speed up controls and stands for FEE (1000k)
  • Speed up X-ray monitors in FEE (300k)
  • Speed up NEH controls and motors (450k)
  • Speed up XES laser system (340k)
  • Speed up AMO focusing mirrors (115k)

22
Lehman Review Recommendations
Cost/Schedule/Funding
  • The method of execution should be reviewed to
    ensure that the schedule is sequenced
    appropriately. The FY 2008 funding level is a
    significant constraint to providing an initial
    RD capability in FY 2009. The project should be
    carefully organized to ensure that all work
    required to deliver the initial capability
    defined above can be completed free of undue risk
    to completion of the project as a whole.
  • Budget constraints, contingency and decision
    dates are identified
  • Some margin for avoiding impact to AMO experiment
  • Late starts, defined for X-ray diagnostics and
    AMO experiment
  • The contingency estimate to accompany the revised
    baseline should be derived using a graded risk
    approach that incorporates both endogenous risk
    in the baseline estimate and exogenous risk from
    outside the project. This will provide a risk
    management pool that is both reliable in
    derivation and robust in scale to deliver the
    project with a reasonable level of risk at an
    acceptable cost. This estimate should include an
    analysis of the impact of schedule delays at key
    points in the project that could have an impact
    on the overall completion date or interim
    deliverables to the user community.
  • Contingency estimate is based on
  • bottoms-up estimates according to PMD 1.1-021
  • Potential contingency needs identified in Risk
    Registry

23
Lehman Review Recommendations
Cost/Schedule/Funding
  • The level of procurement authority (100K) held
    by the SLAC site requires that over 80
    procurement packages for the project be reviewed
    and approved by the SSO prior to release and
    award. This process should be closely managed to
    ensure that potential impacts to the schedule are
    appropriately managed until the level of
    authority is restored by the SSO.
  • Not a problem, to date.

24
PROJECT SAFETY EXPERIENCE31 August 2007
Lost Time Rate
  • Total Project Hours
  • 1.3 M Hours worked
  • SubContractors
  • 256 K Hours worked
  • 4 Lost Time Injuries
  • 1 Recordable Injury
  • LCLS Collaboration
  • 1.05 M Hours worked
  • 2 Lost Time Injuries
  • 8 Days Without Lost Time

Note Injury rates based on 200 K hours (100 man
years) of effort.
25
Drive Laser Commissioning Summary
A GREAT effort Sasha Gilevich Greg
Hays Philippe Hering Alan Miahnahri Chris
Melton Bill White
26
Accomplishments
  • 20 weeks of commissioning gt3000 hours
  • Three 8 hour downs Hot swappable parts will be
    here before next run
  • One 3 hour down
  • 2 hours per week for locking problems
  • 98 up time
  • Solved spatial flutter problem further
    improvement expected
  • gt500 mJ on Cathode spec was 250
  • lt1.5 rms stability spec was 2

27
Issues
  • Oscillator locking to RF
  • Receive new oscillator Sept. 23. Thanks to
    Femtolaser!
  • Transport Tube Contamination
  • Possible glow discharge
  • Faster, easier and cheaper to change windows
  • Temporal profile not at spec
  • Still getting good emittance
  • Thales will visit in October to work on this
  • Spatial profile not great
  • Still getting good emittance
  • New tripler dichroics
  • Less optics in transport
  • System not automated
  • Design review complete, new parts are on order,
    install during down

28
  • Injector Commissioning
  • Many thanks to all involved (especially daily
    help)
  • Laser group (W. White, et al)
  • Controls (H. Shoaee, E. Williams, et al)
  • RF Group (R. Akre, et al)
  • Operations (indispensable help 24 hrs/day)
  • and of course many more (please excuse the short
    list here)

LCLS will continue with phase-II commissioning
starting in December 2007
29
RESULTS
  • Reproducible x y emittance 1.2 µm (design) at 1
    nC charge (design)
  • lt1.5 rms charge stability (design is 2)
  • Drive laser gt95 up-time with up to 400 µJ on
    cathode (250 design)
  • Bunch compression in BC1 fully demonstrated
  • Accelerated LCLS beam up to 16 GeV (13.6 design)
  • X-band RF system and both transverse RF
    deflectors fully operational
  • All of new RF systems performing within spec
    (e.g., lt0.1º, lt0.1 rms)
  • Feedback running launch, charge, energy, RF,
    bunch-length
  • Good injector up-time (gt90)
  • Many high-level applications developed in Matlab
    (corr-plots, emittance, alignment, RF phasing,
    BPM displays, )

30
Problems/Issues
  • Gun Faraday cup toroid not functioning
  • BC1 dipole field quality inadequate
  • downtime fix - thanks ASD)
  • Dont invest too much work in a sows ear
  • Emittance growth from X-band RF section ( )
  • OTR image biased by coherent OTR (laser heater)
  • Wire scanner vibration (use corrector scans?)
  • Initial bunch length still 20 longer than design
  • Emittance preservation through full linac two
    bunch compressors (next years challenge)

31
End of Presentation
About PowerShow.com