Linac Coherent Light Source Project Update Recent progress Enhancements of capability Conventional facilities cost
Linac Coherent Light Source 1.1 Management, Global Controls 1.2 Injector 1.3 Linac 1.3 e-Beam Transport Far Experiment Hall (underground) 1.4 Undulator Near Experiment Hall 1.5 X-Ray Transport/Optics/Diagnostics 1.6 Endstation Systems 1.9 Conventional Facilities
1.2 Injector 10/2005 Shutdown -Laser transport tubes -RF waveguide to injector Gun fabrication in process RF Gun Load Lock L0-1 & L0-2 3-m SLAC Sections Gun Diagnostics Laser Heater Transverse RF Cavity DL1 Bend Straight Ahead Spectrometer
Courtesy L.Xiao LCLS RF Gun Fab. In SLAC Klystron Dept. • Dual Feed • Suppresses the time dependent dipole kick • Matching phase for 2 feeds by holding mechanical tolerances on both arms • Z-coupling (instead of -coupling) • Pulsed heating reduced + easier machining • Racetrack shape compensates for stronger quadrupole mode • Overcoupling =2 • 15 MHz mode separation adopted • Push-Pull deformable tuners • Replace plungers • Shaping of RF pulse for reducing average power • 4kW -> 1.8 kW ; cooling channels designed for handling 4kW • Reduce reflected power from gun • Gun fabricated at SLAC • RF design complete • Mechanical model in progress • 120Hz 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 )
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
Architecture Thales Laser System 150ps 80mW 119MHz 119MHz 400mW Femtolasers Oscillator Femtosource Scientific 20s (chirped mirrors) 1.5mx3.75m footprint (~4.5’x11.5’) Stretcher DAZZLER 20 mJ, 120 Hz RGA Regen Amp 5W, 119MHZ Spectra Physics MILLENIA Vs JEDI #1 100 mJ,120 Hz 1mJ, 120Hz Pre-Amp 4-pass Bowtie Amplifiers are not cryo-cooled IR stability <1%rms (short term) 80 mJ, 120 Hz >20mJ, 120Hz Amplifier 2-pass Bowtie JEDI #2 100 mJ,120 Hz To cathode THG Compressor >2.5mJ, 120Hz >25mJ, 120Hz >40mJ, 120Hz 100 mJ, 120 Hz
1.3 Linac LCLS Klystron Injector Quad BC-1 Dipoles Fab Complete first article ordered measured
1.4 Undulator Systems Progress, Changes • Magnet Blocks Awarded • Magnet Poles Awarded • Strongback Awarded • Assembly, first articles Awarded • Undulator Measurement Lab designed • RFP issued for room • On track for complete delivery of undulators by June 2007 • Design Changes • Electromagnet quadrupoles • Aluminum surface in undulator vacuum chamber • Fixed supports in ANL scope • Planning production prototype tests • Shim incorporated in undulator design – permits K reduction (significant shutdown required)
1.4 Baby Pictures (cont’d) Magnetized blocks Magnet Poles
1.9 Conventional Facilities • Sector 20 Injector Magnet Meas. 2/28/06 Completion
Next Steps • Construction manager • Cost estimate • Construct road? • Construct tunneling portal? • Plan FFTB decommissioning • Date will be between April and June
1.5 New layout of FEE Incorporates Offset Mirrors 7 ft Fe 4 ft Fe 3 ft concrete Offset Mirrors GAS ATTEN COLLIM STOP STOP SOLID ATTEN ~30m
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, PPS • Pixel array detector spec’ed for cluster imaging
1.6 - Since the Last Review • Scope modifications • Soft X-Ray Atomic Physics Experiment • Deletion of generic optics • Re-program to functional near hall station • Pixel Array Detector Specs address single molecule imaging
1.9 New FEH design in baseline Entrance 14ft tunnel Fire door Fire door 15x25ft control cabin 46ft tunnel Sliding hutch door passage below beam pipe 6ft 10ft 28x33ft hutch 10ft 29x33ft hutch 36x33ft hutch 10ft 30ft transition Toilets 20ft tunnel Future tunnel to other stations 212ft
Recent Events • SSRL User Meeting, 17 October 2005 • Pat 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
Wouldn’t Be a Project Without Some Challenges… • Conventional Facilities • High bids • Sector 20, Magnet Measurement Facility, Construction Management • Jacobs Title-II (30%) estimate for future work is 50% above Title-I • Electrical, Mechanical disciplines are 100% above Title-I • Jacobs expects increased escalation
De-Scopes • Undulator Hall A/C redesign ~$3.5M savings • Other CF Economies - $ 7.5M • Still looking for $5M • further CF reductions might yield $1M-$2M • Flipping Mirrors - $2M • More to go, emphasis on: • Reversible • No impact on commissioning and early operation
XR tunnel shortened from 250m to 230m Near Expt. Hall 3rd Undulator Line 2nd Undulator Line
Central Lab Office Complex (CLOC) Capacity >260 78,000 GSF Total 150-Seat Conference Room Leave 3rd floor unfinished Delete 3rd floor?
Continuing Resolution • No slowdown unless CR extends past December • CF, undulator assembly must go forward to stay on schedule • Will ask for help.
Response to Comments/Recommendations Members 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.
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
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.
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.
…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.
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.
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.
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.
Charge to Committee • Consider responses to last review • Consider planned/proposed scope changes to accommodate conventional facilities costs