1 / 48

PROJECT OVERVIEW

PROJECT OVERVIEW. Peter Wanderer APUL Project Manager APUL CD-1 DOE Review January 20-21, 20010. OUTLINE. Scope, WBS, Concept, Deliverables Project Team, Prior Experience, Organization Charts Schedule with Critical Path, Long Lead Procurements, Milestones Cost, Funding Profiles

raziya
Télécharger la présentation

PROJECT OVERVIEW

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. PROJECT OVERVIEW Peter Wanderer APUL Project Manager APUL CD-1 DOE Review January 20-21, 20010

  2. OUTLINE • Scope, WBS, Concept, Deliverables • Project Team, Prior Experience, Organization Charts • Schedule with Critical Path, Long Lead Procurements, Milestones • Cost, Funding Profiles • Risks, Cost Contingency • Value Management • ESH, QA, Hazard Analysis, Security • Configuration Management, CERN-U.S. Documents • Approval requested from this review: CD-1 + LLP • APUL Supporting Documents • Summary P. Wanderer - Project Overview

  3. Large Hadron Collider Lake of Geneva CMS LHCb Airport ALICE ATLAS LHC: Large Hadron Collider P. Wanderer - Project Overview

  4. IR LAYOUTS – PRESENT, UPGRADE P. Wanderer - Project Overview

  5. LHC PHASE I IR UPGRADEscope • Scope: Upgrade LHC Insertion Regions 1 and 5 (ATLAS, CMS) • IR = insertion region = LHC near beam collision point • Upgrade Goal: increase luminosity (collision rate) a factor of 2-3 by replacing IR components with superconducting magnets having larger aperture and a more serviceable interface to the power supplies. • D1 superconducting dipole magnets (BNL) • Cold Powering (Fermilab) • quadrupole and corrector magnets, service module, etc. (CERN) P. Wanderer - Project Overview

  6. APUL Project WBS WBS - 1 Project Management WBS - 2 D1 magnets WBS - 3 Cold Powering WBS - 2.1 D1 Design/Engineering WBS - 3.1 DFX WBS - 2.2 Tooling, D1 Magnet WBS - 3.2 Current Leads WBS - 2.3 Prototype, D1 Magnet WBS - 3.3 Sc Link WBS - 2.4 D1 Magnet Cold Mass Production WBS - 3.4 DFX, Lead, and Link Test WBS - 2.5 Testing P. Wanderer - Project Overview

  7. SUBPROJECT COMPARISON • Similarities in Cold Power and D1 dipole tasks: • Build, test prototypes of each deliverable, then build four production units • Difference: level of design • Cold Power: • Conceptual designs are based on similar items previously built and tested • Engineering design underway • D1 dipole: • Minimal modifications to previously-built magnets (RHIC - DX) • Engineering design (needed in a few areas) underway P. Wanderer - Project Overview

  8. CONCEPT: division of labor based on previous experience of CERN, Fermi, BNL APUL – yellow; CERN – remainder P. Wanderer - Project Overview

  9. CONCEPT: COLD POWERING THREE MAJOR COMPONENTS - for each, prototype + four • DFX Distribution Feed box • More serviceable than present feed box • Connects warm bus and cold bus (superconducting link) • Superconducting link • Links 50 to 90 m long, with complex and unique routing • Link includes NbTi bus for all IR magnets, helium cooling, vacuum, quench-protection instrumentation • Current leads • Cooled by helium vapor • Four different currents • Prototypes used in system test at Fermilab, CERN, and as spares P. Wanderer - Project Overview

  10. CONCEPT: D1 DIPOLES • Replace resistive D1 dipoles with much larger aperture superconducting dipoles • RHIC DX dipole inner diameter = 180 mm ok (>> 120 mm quad aperture) • Modify cold mass outer radius to fit into LHC cryostat • Similar to work on BNL dipoles now in LHC • Two modified DX cold masses in one cryostat = one D1 • Modify DX cold mass only as necessary • Use RHIC tooling, set up in new location. • Build 5 (prototype+4 production) D1 combined cold masses • CERN will install D1 combined cold masses into cryostats  D1 magnet • CERN to test the D1 magnets at cryogenic temps • Install two around ATLAS, two around CMS, use prototype for string test & spare P. Wanderer - Project Overview

  11. DELIVERABLES & SCOPE CONTINGENCY • Deliverables (from the two previous slides) • D1 dipoles: 1 prototype, 4 production combined cold masses (magnets) • Cold Powering: 1 prototype, 4 production of: • DFX distribution feed boxes • Current Leads • Superconducting Links • Scope Contingency • Previous scope reduction: CERN took over tasks of installing combined cold masses into cryostats, cryogenic testing of D1 magnets. This task is similar to work CERN will perform for the quadrupole magnets made at CERN. • There is now no scope contingency P. Wanderer - Project Overview

  12. PROJECT OFFICE • Peter Wanderer, Project Manager – superconducting magnets for SSC, RHIC, US-LHC Project • Sandor Feher, Deputy Project Manager – superconducting magnets, current leads, magnet testing for Tevatron, at CERN, US-LHC Project • Marc Kaducak, Project Engineer – Pierre Auger • Ronald Prwivo, Project Controls Specialist – US-LHC Project • Karen Prosapio, Project Budget Specialist – Fermilab staff (retired  part-time telecommuting) P. Wanderer - Project Overview

  13. SUBPROJECT LEADERS • Cold Power - Sandor Feher • D1 dipole - Michael Anerella – head of BNL Superconducting Magnet Division Mechanical Engineering Section P. Wanderer - Project Overview

  14. CERN TEAM • Ranko Ostojic head of LHC IR Upgrade Project, principal contact for US-LHC Project • CERN engineer for Cold Powering: Amalia Ballarino • CERN engineer for D1 dipoles: Herve Prin • All have prior experience in US-LHC Project P. Wanderer - Project Overview

  15. PRIOR EXPERIENCE (1) • Much of the APUL scope is similar to work done previously by the current APUL staff • “US-LHC” = accelerator-related deliverables from the US now installed in the LHC • distribution feed boxes • superconducting dipoles for other insertion regions • Remainder of scope similar to recent work: • cost of superconducting link based on CERN link • cost based on current leads built at Fermilab P. Wanderer - Project Overview

  16. PRIOR EXPERIENCE (2) • Prior experience (US-LHC Project)  • Models for APUL-CERN interface, both technical (e.g., interface specification) and administrative (e.g., QA). This has saved a lot of effort. • Limited interface to LHC hardware – present scope close to “stand alone” P. Wanderer - Project Overview

  17. DOE and APUL P. Wanderer - Project Overview

  18. Functional Org Chart P. Wanderer - Project Overview

  19. LHC IR UPGRADE SCHEDULE • Above-ground string test – install first of each type of component in January 2013 • Tunnel: ready to install in LHC in 2014  delivery complete fall 2013  little flexibility in CD-4 • CERN may choose to install at a later date, but plans to keep the present date for “ready to install.” P. Wanderer - Project Overview

  20. Design APUL Summary Schedule Procurements 28-Dec-2009 Fabrication FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 Testing Q1 Critical Path Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q1 Q1 Q1 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q2 CD-0 CD-1 CD-2/3 CD-4b Project Management (1.0) 1st Set of APUL Deliverables Due at CERN 31-Dec-12 All APUL Deliverables Due at CERN 01-Sep-2013 Beam Separation Dipole Magnets (2.0) Conceptual and Preliminary Design 01-Apr-09 21-Jul-10 Prototype Parts Procurement 02-Nov-09 01-Sep-10 Prototype Fab., Assembly, Testing 12-Aug-10 15-Apr-11 15-Feb-10 – Order placed for SC Cable Production SC Cable Procurement 18-Aug-09 14-Jun-11 Production Parts Procurement 18-Jan-11 10-Oct-11 Production Fab., Assembly, Testing 14-Apr-11 19-Nov-12 Ship last Magnet to CERN 23-Nov-12 25-Jan-13 Cold Powering (3.0) Conceptual and Prototype Design 19-Mar-09 02-Sep-10 Prototype Procurement 03-Sep-10 31-Aug-11 Prototype Testing 01-Sep-11 13-Jan-12 Production Units Procurement 29-Feb-12 01-Feb-13 04-Feb-13 02-Apr-13 Shipment to CERN

  21. APUL L1 and L2 Milestones 29-Dec-2009 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q1 Q1 Q1 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q2 CERN Delivery Dates 1st Set of APUL Deliverables Due at CERN Dec-2012 All APUL Deliverables Due at CERN Sep-2013 Project Management (1.0) Critical Decisions (L1 Milestones) CD-0 01-Dec-2008 CD-1 18-Mar-10 CD2/3 05-Nov-10 CD-4A 16-Dec-13 L2 MILESTONES Beam Separation Dipole Magnets (2.0) CD-4B 01-Apr-14 SC Cable Order Placed (2.4.1.1) 15-Apr-10 Coil, CM Prelim. Design Complete (2.1.1.1) 25-Jun-10 Proto. Magnet Leaves BNL (2.3.3.6) 20-Jun-11 Coil, CM Final Design Complete (2.1.2.1) 30-Aug-11 Proto. Magnet Arrives CERN (2.3.3.6) 03-Oct-11 Production Coils Complete (2.4.2.5.20) 09-Jan-12 D1 Magnet #3 Leaves BNL (2.4.3.10) 11-Jul-12 D1 Magnet #5 Leaves BNL (2.4.3.15) 23-Jan-13 All D1 Magnets @ CERN (2.4.3.15) 06-Jun-13 Cold Powering (3.0) Current Lead Proto. Design Complete (3.2.2.1) 08-Sep-10 SC Link Proto. Design Complete (3.3.3.1) 19-Oct-10 DFX Proto. Design Complete (3.1.2.1) 02-Nov-10 Place Order for DFXs (3.1.2.2) 03-Feb-11 First DFX at FNAL (3.1.2.4) 31-Oct-11 Proto. Testing Complete (3.4.2) 13-Mar-12 Prototype Cold Powering at CERN 31-Dec-12 Production DFX Fab Complete (3.1.3.2) 04-Apr-13 02-Sep-13 Final DFX Units at CERN

  22. SCHEDULE CONTINGENCY • Level 2 milestones include 2 mo. float • Baseline schedule for delivery of final components to CERN is April 2013 • 5 mo. ahead of CERN Upgrade Project schedule. • 8 mo. ahead of CD-4a (CERN initial acceptance, based on incoming inspection) • 11.5 mo. ahead of CD-4b (CERN final acceptance, following cold test) APUL Cost Slides M. Kaducak

  23. FUNDING • DOE OHEP funding cap: • Presented at November Director’s Follow-Up Review: TPC = $29.0M with 30% contingency • Recommendation of Nov. review: strengthen Project Management – accepted – TPC increase $0.4M  contingency for $29M TPC reduced to 28%. • OHEP advice: present 30% contingency, $29.4M budget at DOE CD-1 review APUL Cost Slides M. Kaducak

  24. APUL Cost Summary APUL Cost Slides M. Kaducak

  25. Funding, Obligation, Cost Table APUL Cost Slides M. Kaducak

  26. Funding, Obligations APUL Cost Slides M. Kaducak

  27. D1 LONG-LEAD PROCUREMENTS • The procurements of several materials for the D1 magnets have long lead times. For the production run of four magnets, APUL requests permission to purchase these items following CD-1 approval: • NbTi superconductor, baseline cost $635k • Yoke laminations, $212k • Collar laminations, $508k • Stainless steel half cylinders for helium containment, $200k • The most time-critical material is the NbTi superconductor, for which we have one qualified, interested vendor, a good price, and a 120 day period to accept the price, ending Feb. 28, 2010. • Details in talks by M. Anerella APUL Cost Slides M. Kaducak

  28. APUL FTEs APUL Cost Slides M. Kaducak

  29. RISK MANAGEMENT • Risk management follows standard “integrated” process: • Identify risk (registry) … analyze (risk matrix) … plan abatement … carry out plan … check result of plan. (APUL docs #2, #49) • Technical risk control via design reviews, procedures, QA • Magnets: cold test magnet cold masses before shipment to CERN • Cold Powering: test 1st system (one of each component) at Fermilab • Cost risk • Cold powering: fixed price contracts • Magnets: maintain cryo test facility, track labor closely • Schedule risk: • Magnets: testing at each stage of production, assembly • Cold Powering: Track progress at vendor, subcontractor as needed. P. Wanderer - Project Overview

  30. RISK IMPACT, PROBABILITY CLASSIFICATION P. Wanderer - Project Overview

  31. Risk WBS 1 — Project Management Probability = Probability of Event; Cost = Current Cost Impact Estimates (Use $K); Schedule = Schedule Impact (Use time in months); Technical = Technical Impact (Use performance degradation in %); O = Optimistic; ML = Most Likely; P = Pessimistic; P. Wanderer - Project Overview

  32. COST CONTINGENCY (1) Followed dictionary used in recent particle physics experiments: • 10% Vendor Quote in $ • 15% Previously Built (several times in house) • 20% Previously Built (factory) • 30% Previously Built (one-time) -- much of Cold Powering • 35% Technical Design (Engineer's estimate) • 40% Conceptual Design (Engineer's estimate) • 50% Conceptual Design (Physicist's estimate) • 100% Early R&D P. Wanderer - Project Overview

  33. COST CONTINGENCY (2) • Bottoms-up contingency (from previous slide) is 30% • Experience of Project Team important in estimating • “Top Down” contingencies from Risk Registry, using Most Likely probabilities: • Project Management $45k/1.3 mo., D1 dipoles $312k/6 mo., Cold Powering $171k/5.3 mo., total $528k/7-12 mo. • Opinions of colleagues with significant experience in similar projects: experienced staff, similar to items built before  30% is reasonable P. Wanderer - Project Overview

  34. CERN-US SCOPE OF WORK • CERN-U.S. government: Protocol options • New Accelerator Protocol (9 months to approve) • ATLAS/CMS Protocols • CERN-DOE Labs: Implementing Arrangement • Sets detailed scope for APUL • draft by APUL under review at CERN • similar to US-LHC document – contains WBS – each page initialed by CERN, US Project Managers • no significant issues expected P. Wanderer - Project Overview

  35. CDR, SPECS FOR UPGRADE • Phase I Upgrade CDR Dec. 2008 • http://slhc-irp1.web.cern.ch/SLHC-IRP1/ • Weekly meetings of Technical Design Group, with APUL attendance via Webex (slides, phone) • Functional specifications (CERN documents) • D1 dipole completed (posted at CERN; APUL doc # 134) • Cold Powering draft available Nov. 2009; finalized January 2010 • Interface specifications (APUL document) • Fewer than for US-LHC project (“stand alone”) • Under development • Technical Design Report (APUL doc): for CD-2 P. Wanderer - Project Overview

  36. CONFIGURATION MGMT • Mechanical and electrical design drawings showing the specifications for the equipment and subcomponents • Controlled as part of standard engineering procedure • Requirements and Specification Documents • Controlled via interface to CERN, standard Project practice • Interface Control Documents, Technical Design Reports • Controlled via interface to CERN • Management documents such as the Baseline Schedule, PMP, MOU’s, and SOW’s. • Controlled via interface with DOE, Fermi Office of Pgm Mgmt Oversight P. Wanderer - Project Overview

  37. VALUE MGMT/ENGINEERING • Budget cap  minimize cost while maintaining scope and schedule • D1 dipoles – examples • Use alternate material for collars • Use of existing tooling, cryo test facility • Use previously-developed methods for achieving desired field quality with construction of just one prototype • Cold Powering - examples • Competitive bidding / fixed price contracts • Phased contract: build prototype, test prototype, build remainder • Conductor donated by CERN P. Wanderer - Project Overview

  38. ES&H, QA • Overall: Follow plan for US-LHC work, updating documents as needed • Environment: NEPA “categorical exclusion” granted by DOE Brookhaven Office (BHSO) in May. • Safety and Health: MOU with CERN in draft status • Kaducak et al. discussed with CERN during September visit • Generic superconducting object testing issues, • Added issue: weld needed to close D1 dipole helium vessel, which has a non-circular shape. As far as R. Ostojic knows, US-LHC approach is ok. • QA: Separate BNL and Fermilab plans, as last time • Fermilab -APUL doc #54; BNL – APUL doc # TBD P. Wanderer - Project Overview

  39. HAZARD ANALYSIS • Hazards are basically the same as those encountered in much of the work in the Fermilab Technical Division and in the BNL Superconducting Magnet Division. APUL work will be carried out by staff familiar with these hazards. • “The conclusion of the APUL project management is that all major hazards have been identified and can be addressed by the means discussed here and in the references.” – joint Fermilab, BNL Preliminary Hazard Analysis for APUL (APUL doc # 146) P. Wanderer - Project Overview

  40. SECURITY • Security Vulnerability Assessment Report (SVAR) • BNL: Memo, J. Amabile (Manager, BNL Lab Protection Division) to P. Wanderer, Dec. 23, 2009: • Report On An Assessment of Security Risks at the Brookhaven National Laboratory and the Accelerator Project Upgrade of LHC-APUL • “The Accelerator Project Upgrade of LHC-APUL, within the Superconducting Magnet Division, does not result in any changes to the current [BNL lab-wide security] document.” P. Wanderer - Project Overview

  41. REQUESTED FROM THIS REVIEW • Approve CD-1: • selection of alternatives for deliverables • cost range, contingency • Approve Long-Lead Procurements • Listed earlier in talk; details in M. Anerella talks P. Wanderer - Project Overview

  42. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS • Conceptual Design Report, APUL-doc-6 • Value Management, APUL-doc-44 • FNAL QA Plan, APUL-doc-54 • Risk Management Plan, APUL-doc-2 • Risk Registry, APUL-doc-49 • Preliminary Hazard Analysis, APUL-doc-53 • Configuration Management Program, APUL-doc-3 • Key Assumption Document, APUL-doc-56 • WBS Dictionary, APUL-doc-60 • NEPA Categorical Exclusion, APUL-doc-50 • Preliminary Project Management Plan, APUL-doc-1 • Preliminary Project Execution Plan, APUL-doc-58 • Acquisition Strategy, APUL-doc-62 P. Wanderer - Project Overview

  43. SUMMARY • APUL leverages US capabilities to made a high-impact contribution (factor of 2-3 increase in luminosity) to LHC. • Scope well-defined • Close to scope of previous work • Need to be careful with the details • Delivery dates firm, float adequate, no scope contingency • Experienced team in place • Budget is tight  contingency level important  schedule risk, especially from CR P. Wanderer - Project Overview

  44. BACKUP P. Wanderer - Project Overview

  45. Funding, Obligation, Cost Chart P. Wanderer - Project Overview

  46. CRITICAL DECISION PROCESS (1) Critical Decision (CD) 0: establish “Mission need” Signed Oct. 30, 2008 by Ray Orbach CD 1: Internal reviews for Cold Powering (May 6), D1 dipole (May 15), cost scrub/value engineering (June 19) Fermilab CD-1 Director’s Review (July) Fermilab CD-1 Director’s Follow-up Review (this one) DOE CD-1 review – first week of Dec. Will request “tailoring” to allow long-lead procurements (LLP), as follows - D1 production cold masses: superconductor (Jan. 2010), iron, stainless steel laminations, etc. (Spring 2010) [delayed schedule – order coil parts, but not cold mass parts] Cold Powering: Prototype DFX (Summer 2010) DOE CD-1 approval (~ 1 month after CD-1 review) 46 P. Wanderer - Project Overview

  47. CRITICAL DECISION PROCESS (2) • CD-2/3a/3b  establish project baseline, order any remaining LLPs, start production • DOE CD2/3a review ~ Summer 2010 • D1 dipole coil production starts Nov. 2010  tailoring for CD3b • DOE CD 3b full review ~ Dec. 2010/Jan. 2011 • CD-4 (3/31/2014) • CERN shutdowns are most efficiently scheduled to start Jan. 1. • CERN date for beginning of assembly of string test components, and date for installing remaining components, sets the schedule. Also: LINAC4 completion in 2014. P. Wanderer - Project Overview

  48. To do • Update DOE-APUL org chart (slide 15?) • BNL QA APRL doc # • DOE and Functional Org charts P. Wanderer - Project Overview

More Related