Post on 21-Dec-2015
John N. Galayda
LCLS Facility Advisory Committee galayda@slac.stanford.edu
27 October 2005
Linac Coherent Light Source Project Update
•Recent progress
•Enhancements of capability
•Conventional facilities cost
John N. Galayda
LCLS Facility Advisory Committee galayda@slac.stanford.edu
27 October 2005
Linac Coherent Light Source
1.1 Management, Global Controls
1.2 Injector1.2 Injector1.3 Linac
1.3 e-BeamTransport
1.4 Undulator
Near Experiment Hall
FarExperimentHall (underground)
1.5 X-Ray Transport/Optics/Diagnostics1.6 Endstation Systems
1.9 Conventional Facilities
John N. Galayda
LCLS Facility Advisory Committee galayda@slac.stanford.edu
27 October 2005
1.1 Project Management 8,880 8,375 8,648 -505 -273 0.94 0.97 28,970 28,970 0
1.2 Injector 7,113 6,163 6,096 -951 67 0.87 1.01 19,297 19,297 0
1.3 Linac 3,122 3,049 2,520 -73 529 0.98 1.21 26,431 26,431 0
1.4 Undulator 8,912 6,244 6,206 -2,668 39 0.70 1.01 50,724 50,724 0
1.5 X-ray Transport 4,356 4,225 4,102 -131 123 0.97 1.03 27,127 27,127 0
1.6 X-ray Endstations 721 721 680 0 41 1.00 1.06 14,779 14,779 0
1.9 Conventional Facilities 4,813 4,828 5,394 15 -567 1.00 0.89 80,649 80,649 0
1 LCLS Total Base Cost 37,917 33,604 33,646 -4,313 -42 0.89 1.00 247,976 247,976 0
315,000 315,000
67,024 67,024
31.3% 31.3%
13.6% 13.6%
2.1 LCLS Project Mgmt, Planning & Admn (OPC) 4,437 4,538 4,345 101 193 1.02 1.04 33,021 33,021 0
2.2 Injector (OPC) 699 757 578 58 179 1.08 1.31 6,107 6,107 0
2.3 Linac (OPC) 1 1 1 0 0 1.05 1.00 2,545 2,545 0
2.4 Undulator (OPC) 742 689 776 -53 -86 0.93 0.89 5,873 5,873 0
2.5 X-ray Transport (OPC) 480 412 339 -68 73 0.86 1.22 4,015 4,015 0
2.6 X-ray Endstations (OPC) 165 137 98 -28 39 0.83 1.39 5,200 5,200 0
2.9 Conventional Facilities (OPC) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 LCLS Total Other Project Cost 6,524 6,534 6,136 10 397 1.00 1.06 56,761 56,761 0
64,000 64,000
7,239 7,239
14.4% 14.4%
LCLS Total Obligations to Date 58,430 11.5% 11.5%
LCLS Total Project Cost 44,441 40,137 39,782 -4,303 355 0.90 1.01 379,000 379,000
13.2% 13.2%
LCLS Other Project Cost
LCLS Cost/Schedule Status Report - Work Breakdown Structure
WBS Variance
Schedule
Actual Cost Work
Performed
% Complete LCLS Base Cost
% Comp LCLS Other Project Cost
Avail. Management Reserve
% Contingency / Rem. Work
% Contingency / Rem. Work
31-Aug-05
SPI CPI
Performance Indices
Cumulative to Date ($K) At Completion ($K)
Budgeted
Avail. Contingency
Work Performed
VarianceLatest Revised
Estimate
Budgeted Cost
Work Scheduled
Cost
% Complete LCLS TPC
LCLS Total Estimated Cost
John N. Galayda
LCLS Facility Advisory Committee galayda@slac.stanford.edu
27 October 2005
10' ACCELERATOR
S2
OT
R3
LINAC HOUSING SIDEWALL
PEP-2 HE/LE BYPASS
LINAC COHERENT LIGHT SOURCE MODIFICATION TO LINAC 10' HIGH
BEAM
LE
LINAC HOUSING SIDEWALL
LINAC HOUSING SIDEWALL
YA
G 4
C
0 1
PEN. 20-17
BE
AM
ST
OP
PE
R
QE
-90
1
BPM
17 D
UM
P
9.4
LINAC HOUSING SIDEWALL
SECTION 21-1BSC
11
PEN. 20-16PEN. 20-15
2" TUBE
QU
AD
10' ACCELERATOR
SC
5
QU
AD B
01
SC
9
BP
M 1
3
BP
M 6
SC
3
LINAC HOUSING SIDEWALL
SECTION 20-8A SECTION 20-8B
A
10'
WS
04
QU
AD
LINAC HOUSING SIDEWALL
HE
1 2 4
3SECTION 20-8C
B
OTR
4
BP
M 5YA
G 2
CM
3
ACCEL
SC
4
10' ACCEL
LINAC HOUSING SIDEWALL
B, ,
KEY: ... ETC. ARE SIX SOURCE AREAS ALONG THE DRIFT REGION2,1
... ETC. ARE POINT-SOURCE LOCATIONS ALONG THE HE BYPASS LINE02,0 1
ARE THE DETECTOR LOCATIONS INSIDE THE LCLS INJECTOR VAULTCA
ACCELERATOR
EO
2
RF
KIC
KER
OT
R6
BP
M 1
4
3" TUBE
10'
0 2 03 04
B0
2
5 6
PEN. 21-1
ACCEL
QU
AD
QU
AD
CONCRETE
10' HIGH
B0 QS01
DRIFT SECTION
PICPIC
BSOIC
VALVE
Fe 1 Fe 2 Fe 3
Pb 3
FC1,YAG
E01
BPM
3
RF G
UN
CAT
HO
DE
CM
1
MAGNETIC
SC1 X-Y,QUAD
VALVE 1
S1Spectro.
CM2
BPM
2
BPM 4
FC2,YAG
BPM
1
RFCav.
SC2X-Y
PORC
UPINE CATHO
DE
HOLDER
UHV ALL M
ETAL
GATE VALVES
SPOOLS FR
OM VALVE
SEAL
LONG
BELLOWS
ASSEMB
LY
TREATM
ENT CHAMB
ER
VACUUM
PUMPS
QUAD
UNDULATOR
RA
D S
TOP
PER
QU
AD
OT
R5
Pb 2
Pb 1
QS02 QS03
OTRFC 4
EO
3
CM
4
SC
7
BPM
9
BP
M 1
0 VA
LVE
2
BPM
11
VALV
E 3
SC
8
BP
M 1
2
SC
10
VA
LVE
4S
C12
SC
13
FC3,YAG
SC
6
YAG
1
YAG
3
BP
M 8
BP
M 7
BPM 20
BPM 19
BPM 18
QU
AD
QU
AD
QU
ADQU
AD
QUAD
QU
AD
BPM 15BPM 16
1/22/2004
OT
R 1
OT
R 2
1.2 InjectorRF Gun
Load Lock
Transverse RF Cavity
Laser Heater
DL1 Bend
Straight Ahead Spectrometer
L0-1 & L0-23-m SLAC Sections
Gun Diagnostics
10/2005 Shutdown-Laser transport tubes-RF waveguide to injectorGun fabrication in process
John N. Galayda
LCLS Facility Advisory Committee galayda@slac.stanford.edu
27 October 2005
LCLS RF Gun Fab. In SLAC Klystron Dept.
Courtesy L.Xiao
Dual FeedSuppresses the time dependent dipole kickMatching phase for 2 feeds by holding mechanical tolerances on both arms
Z-coupling (instead of -coupling)Pulsed heating reduced + easier machiningRacetrack shape compensates for stronger quadrupole mode
Overcoupling =215 MHz mode separation adoptedPush-Pull deformable tuners
Replace plungers
Shaping of RF pulse for reducing average power4kW -> 1.8 kW ; cooling channels designed for handling 4kWReduce reflected power from gun
Gun fabricated at SLACRF design completeMechanical model in progress120Hz heat calculations under way
LCLS-TN-05-3.pdf
L. Xiao, et al., “Dual feed RF gun for the LCLS”, SLAC-PUB-11213, May 2005, http://www.slac.stanford.edu/pubs/slacpubs/11000/slac-pub-11213.html ; to be published in the proceedings of the 2005 Particle Accelerator Conference, 16-20 May 2005, Knoxville, TN; also to be published at the Joint Accelerator Conference Website (
http://www.JACOW.org )
John N. Galayda
LCLS Facility Advisory Committee galayda@slac.stanford.edu
27 October 2005
Injector Laser Chosen - Thales
Delivery expected in May
LLNL (Brent Stuart, et al.) Studying temporal pulse shaping
ANL ( Yuelin Lee) Studying transverse pulse shaping
Bill White, LCLS Laser Group
Leader
Group will support facility lasers
John N. Galayda
LCLS Facility Advisory Committee galayda@slac.stanford.edu
27 October 2005
Architecture Thales Laser System
1.5mx3.75m footprint(~4.5’x11.5’)
Spectra Physics MILLENIA Vs
Femtolasers OscillatorFemtosource Scientific 20s
(chirped mirrors)
JEDI #1100 mJ,120 Hz
JEDI #2100 mJ,120 Hz
Amplifier2-pass Bowtie
CompressorTHG
Pre-Amp4-pass Bowtie
RGARegen Amp
Stretcher DAZZLER
20 mJ, 120 Hz
80 mJ, 120 Hz
100 mJ, 120 Hz
119MHz400mW
5W, 119MHZ
150ps80mW119MHz
1mJ, 120Hz
>20mJ, 120Hz
>40mJ, 120Hz>25mJ, 120Hz>2.5mJ, 120Hz
To cathode
Amplifiers are not cryo-cooledIR stability <1%rms (short term)
John N. Galayda
LCLS Facility Advisory Committee galayda@slac.stanford.edu
27 October 2005
1.3 Linac
LCLS Klystron Injector Quad BC-1 DipolesFab Complete first article ordered measured
John N. Galayda
LCLS Facility Advisory Committee galayda@slac.stanford.edu
27 October 2005
1.4 Undulator Systems Progress, Changes
Magnet Blocks AwardedMagnet Poles AwardedStrongback AwardedAssembly, first articles AwardedUndulator Measurement Lab designedRFP issued for roomOn track for complete delivery of undulators by June 2007Design Changes
Electromagnet quadrupolesAluminum surface in undulator vacuum chamberFixed supports in ANL scopePlanning production prototype testsShim incorporated in undulator design – permits K reduction (significant shutdown required)
John N. Galayda
LCLS Facility Advisory Committee galayda@slac.stanford.edu
27 October 2005
John N. Galayda
LCLS Facility Advisory Committee galayda@slac.stanford.edu
27 October 2005
1.4 Baby Pictures (cont’d)
Magnetized blocks Magnet Poles
John N. Galayda
LCLS Facility Advisory Committee galayda@slac.stanford.edu
27 October 2005
1.9 Conventional Facilities
Sector 20 Injector Magnet Meas.
2/28/06 Completion
John N. Galayda
LCLS Facility Advisory Committee galayda@slac.stanford.edu
27 October 2005
FFTB Shielding Sector 24 Stairs
John N. Galayda
LCLS Facility Advisory Committee galayda@slac.stanford.edu
27 October 2005
Next Steps
Construction manager
Cost estimate
Construct road?
Construct tunneling portal?
Plan FFTB decommissioningDate will be between April and June
John N. Galayda
LCLS Facility Advisory Committee galayda@slac.stanford.edu
27 October 2005
~30m
GAS ATTENSOLID ATTENSTOP COLLIM
OffsetMirrors
STOP
1.5 New layout of FEEIncorporates Offset Mirrors
7 ft Fe 3 ft concrete 4 ft Fe
John N. Galayda
LCLS Facility Advisory Committee galayda@slac.stanford.edu
27 October 2005
1.6 XES instrumentation effort
Old Plan:XES to build a generic set of instrument components(infrastructure PPS, MPS, network)
New Plan: XES builds one instrument for soft x-ray Atomic Physics studies
Experiment infrastructure, laser, chambers, PPSPixel array detector spec’ed for cluster imaging
John N. Galayda
LCLS Facility Advisory Committee galayda@slac.stanford.edu
27 October 2005
1.6 - Since the Last Review
Scope modificationsSoft X-Ray Atomic Physics Experiment
Deletion of generic optics
Re-program to functional near hall station
Pixel Array Detector Specs address single molecule imaging
John N. Galayda
LCLS Facility Advisory Committee galayda@slac.stanford.edu
27 October 2005
20ft tunnel
30ft transition
46ft tunnel
212ft
28x33ft hutch 29x33ft
hutch36x33ft hutch
10ft
passage belowbeam pipe
Fire door
Fire door
10ft10ft
6ft
ToiletsFuture tunnel to other stations
Entrance 14ft tunnel
Sliding hutch door
15x25ft control cabin
1.9 New FEH design in baseline
John N. Galayda
LCLS Facility Advisory Committee galayda@slac.stanford.edu
27 October 2005
Recent Events
SSRL User Meeting, 17 October 2005Pat Dehmer presentation, 2007 Budget
LCLS has high priority, high visibility, high likelihood of full funding
BES must get funding above its “line” to do LCLS without shutting down some facilities
BES is prepared to do this for LCLS IF we are ready
John N. Galayda
LCLS Facility Advisory Committee galayda@slac.stanford.edu
27 October 2005
Wouldn’t Be a Project Without Some Challenges…
Conventional FacilitiesHigh bids
Sector 20, Magnet Measurement Facility, Construction Management
Jacobs Title-II (30%) estimate for future work is 50% above Title-IElectrical, Mechanical disciplines are 100% above Title-IJacobs expects increased escalation
John N. Galayda
LCLS Facility Advisory Committee galayda@slac.stanford.edu
27 October 2005
De-Scopes
Undulator Hall A/C redesign ~$3.5M savingsOther CF Economies - $ 7.5MStill looking for $5M
further CF reductions might yield $1M-$2M
Flipping Mirrors - $2MFlipping Mirrors - $2MMore to go, emphasis on:More to go, emphasis on:
ReversibleReversibleNo impact on commissioning and early No impact on commissioning and early operationoperation
John N. Galayda
LCLS Facility Advisory Committee galayda@slac.stanford.edu
27 October 2005
2nd Undulator Line
3rd Undulator Line NearExpt.Hall
XR tunnel shortenedfrom 250m to 230m
28x33ft hutch 1 29x33ft
hutch 2 36x33ft hutch 3
20ft tunnel212ft
46ft tunnel
15x25ft control cabin
Entrance 14ft tunnel
John N. Galayda
LCLS Facility Advisory Committee galayda@slac.stanford.edu
27 October 2005
Central Lab Office Complex (CLOC)Capacity >26078,000 GSF Total150-Seat Conference Room
Leave 3rd floor unfinished
Delete 3rd floor?
John N. Galayda
LCLS Facility Advisory Committee galayda@slac.stanford.edu
27 October 2005
Continuing Resolution
No slowdown unless CR extends past December
CF, undulator assembly must go forward to stay on schedule
Will ask for help.
John N. Galayda
LCLS Facility Advisory Committee galayda@slac.stanford.edu
27 October 2005
Response to Comments/RecommendationsMembers of the FAC had minor concerns about the organization chart as having a baroque appearance in that on the surface, lines of authority don’t appear to be that clear. However, throughout the course of the FAC meeting clear lines of responsibility and authority were in evidence and only a few issues on communication (notably between the physics requirements on the conventional facilities and the operations configurations and approaches) were apparent. Response: The LCLS organization chart has been revised to clarify roles and responsibilities.
John N. Galayda
LCLS Facility Advisory Committee galayda@slac.stanford.edu
27 October 2005
LCLSProjectOrganization(Sep05)
John N. Galayda
LCLS Facility Advisory Committee galayda@slac.stanford.edu
27 October 2005
The project should incorporate those risk or trade-off items identified in this and previous FAC meetings into the Project Risk Registry to ensure adequate tracking and resolution. The project may wish to also incorporate any such risk items cited in official DOE reviews as well.Response: The LCLS organization continues to use the Risk Registry on a monthly basis as a key management tool to proactively address its known risks. The undulator floor stability risk has now been retired as it has now been shown that expected stability issues can be addressed with the alignment systems and BBA at acceptable intervals.
https://www-lcls-internal.slac.stanford.edu/projectspace_L2/Project_Office/Risk_Registry_Documents/LCLS_risk_registry_September_05.pdf
John N. Galayda
LCLS Facility Advisory Committee galayda@slac.stanford.edu
27 October 2005
The project is entering into its boost phase where it is undergoing its maximum gradient: staffing, effort and procurement. During this phase, the timeliness of decisions often becomes critical and delays can quickly accumulate that can impact the overall progress of the project without specific attention. This is a concern to the FAC as the decision making process is not transparent and may need to accelerate to ensure avoiding unnecessary delays. Response: The decision making process has been made more transparent with the Change Control Board (CCB). With the CD-2b (Approve Performance Baseline), LCLS has enacted the CCB to deal with technical, cost and schedule issues on a timely basis. The CCB forum ensures that decisions are communicated uniformly across the project and formally documented in a manner consistent with good configuration control. Since CD-2b (April 2005), LCLS has approved 77 changes to the project and allocated ~$7M of contingency to the baseline cost of the LCLS.
John N. Galayda
LCLS Facility Advisory Committee galayda@slac.stanford.edu
27 October 2005
The critical path of the project, likewise, may be extremely fluid during this phase and near critical paths can quickly become critical paths, and so those efforts which at present are not on the critical path, must understand that they can quickly become the pacing activities.Response: The LCLS has significantly increased its staffing since April 2005 and with that some time for assimilation of new staff into the project is required. The LCLS is now nearly complete on its staffing plan so the inefficiencies due to assimilation can be expected to drop off. Critical path is monitored regularly and has not shown any appreciable degradation since established at 215 days.
John N. Galayda
LCLS Facility Advisory Committee galayda@slac.stanford.edu
27 October 2005
…However, an insightful planning exercise is to evaluate all activities for early starts up to the point where all of the budget authorization (BA) in each fiscal year would be used. In addition, exceeding this optimistic BA plan by 5 to 10% would also be helpful in evaluating potential resource demands. This planning assures that there are “swing items” identified in order to accomplish other work if planned activities are delayed. If the project doesn’t have swing items identified to work in the available time and with the available BA, the CD-4 milestone may be at greater risk than necessary.
“Swing procurements” are procurements that can be advanced should budget become available due to delays in other areas. This is of primary importance between FY06 and FY07. Since civil construction sets the critical path, LCLS will plan to use its budget flexibility in this area to best advantage, based on advice from the Construction Manager.
John N. Galayda
LCLS Facility Advisory Committee galayda@slac.stanford.edu
27 October 2005
A useful plot that can illustrate this phenomenon, and serve as both a leading and lagging indicator, is the contingency as a percent of the estimate to complete (ETC) budget as a function of the percent of the project complete. Generally, this should be roughly a horizontal line above 20%. Early in the project life it would likely start out at a higher number and depending upon the remaining risks within a project, the percentage can also be less than 20%.Response: Currently, the LCLS holds ~32% contingency on work remaining. This number may fall lower as the conventional facilities estimates become more mature and LCLS approaches the start of construction.
John N. Galayda
LCLS Facility Advisory Committee galayda@slac.stanford.edu
27 October 2005
There is a need for a central database containing and controlling the complete configuration of the LCLS project.
Work has begun on defining the detailed needs of the central database effort for the LCLS project. An IT Manager (Andrea Chan from the SLAC SCS group) has been hired into the LCLS Division and bringing significant experience in setting up databases in a project environment. At the same time Sergei Chevtsov in the LCLS Controls Group has been looking at the relational database needs for the control system, in particular the RDB requirements for online modeling for the accelerator.
John N. Galayda
LCLS Facility Advisory Committee galayda@slac.stanford.edu
27 October 2005
The LCLS Project should consider giving the FAC access to the LCLS internal website. This would allow the FAC to view other reviews and important work that can have an impact on the scope and details of FAC meetings. It will also allow the LCLS Project to exploit the full potential of the FAC.LCLS is in the process of exploring a different data management system, which would make access control but the system is not likely to become operational in this calendar year. At present, LCLS is working with Kem Robinson to do it the hard way now or wait until the simpler solution is in place.
John N. Galayda
LCLS Facility Advisory Committee galayda@slac.stanford.edu
27 October 2005
Charge to Committee
Consider responses to last review
Consider planned/proposed scope changes to accommodate conventional facilities costs
John N. Galayda
LCLS Facility Advisory Committee galayda@slac.stanford.edu
27 October 2005
End of Presentation