Linac Coherent Light Source Project Update
Recent progress
Enhancements of capability
Conventional facilities cost
27 October 2005
LCLS Facility Advisory Committee
John N. Galayda
galayda@slac.stanford.edu
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
27 October 2005
LCLS Facility Advisory Committee
John N. Galayda
galayda@slac.stanford.edu
LCLS Cost/Schedule Status Report - Work Breakdown Structure
31-Aug-05
Cumulative to Date ($K)
WBS
Budgeted Cost
Work
Scheduled
Variance
Actual Cost
Work
Performed
Work
Performed
Cost
8,880
8,375
8,648
-505
1.2 Injector
7,113
6,163
6,096
1.3 Linac
3,122
3,049
2,520
1.4 Undulator
8,912
6,244
1.5 X-ray Transport
4,356
1.9 Conventional Facilities
1 LCLS Total Base Cost
Performance Indices
SPI
CPI
Variance
-273
0.94
0.97
28,970
28,970
0
-951
67
0.87
1.01
19,297
19,297
0
-73
529
0.98
1.21
26,431
26,431
0
6,206
-2,668
39
0.70
1.01
50,724
50,724
0
4,225
4,102
-131
123
0.97
1.03
27,127
27,127
0
721
721
680
0
41
1.00
1.06
14,779
14,779
0
4,813
4,828
5,394
15
-567
1.00
0.89
80,649
80,649
0
37,917
33,604
33,646
-4,313
-42
0.89
1.00
247,976
247,976
0
315,000
315,000
Avail. Contingency
67,024
67,024
% Contingency / Rem. Work
31.3%
31.3%
% Complete LCLS Base Cost
13.6%
13.6%
LCLS Total Estimated Cost
2.1 LCLS Project Mgmt, Planning & Admn (OPC)
Latest Revised
Estimate
Budgeted
Schedule
1.1 Project Management
1.6 X-ray Endstations
At Completion ($K)
4,437
4,538
4,345
101
193
1.02
1.04
33,021
33,021
0
699
757
578
58
179
1.08
1.31
6,107
6,107
0
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)
0.83
1.39
5,200
5,200
0
0
0
0
56,761
56,761
0
64,000
64,000
2.2 Injector (OPC)
2.3 Linac (OPC)
165
137
98
-28
39
2.9 Conventional Facilities (OPC)
0
0
0
0
0
2 LCLS Total Other Project Cost
6,524
6,534
6,136
10
397
1.00
1.06
LCLS Other Project Cost
LCLS Total Obligations to Date
58,430
LCLS Total Project Cost
44,441
Avail. Management Reserve
7,239
7,239
% Contingency / Rem. Work
14.4%
14.4%
% Comp LCLS Other Project Cost
40,137
39,782
-4,303
355
0.90
1.01
11.5%
11.5%
379,000
379,000
13.2%
13.2%
% Complete LCLS TPC
27 October 2005
LCLS Facility Advisory Committee
John N. Galayda
galayda@slac.stanford.edu
1.2 Injector
10/2005 Shutdown
-Laser transport tubes
-RF waveguide to injector
Gun fabrication in process
RF Gun
LINAC HOUSING SIDEWALL
TR
UM
PU
MP
S
1
F
YA C 1,
G
SP
SE O OL
AL S
FR
1
Transverse RF Cavity
1
OT
R
QU
AD
EO
SC 2
QU 7
AD
Pb 2
10' HIGH
CONCRETE
A , B , C ARE THE DETECTOR LOCATIONS INSIDE THE LCLS INJECTOR VAULT
VA
LV
E
Fe 2
Fe 3
BEAM
LINAC HOUSING SIDEW ALL
LCLS Facility Advisory Committee
QUAD
CM4
SC11
B02
QUAD
EO3
B PM 18
SECTION 21-1B
Q S01
BP M 20
Q S02
DRIFT SECTION
LINAC HOUSING SIDEW ALL
Straight Ahead Spectrometer
27 October 2005
BPM 19
DUMP
04
SC10
D
04
WS
OTR
6
Q UA
SC9
B01
SC
8
AD
03
BPM 16
B PM 15
9.4
ACCELERATOR
17
02
3" TUBE
6
SC13
LE
01
3
5
B0
PEP-2 HE/LE BYPASS
QU
VALVE
HE
4
Pb 1
BPM
VA
14
LV
E
4
SC
12
YA
G
4
SECTION 20-8C
2
BP
M
SECTION 20-8B
2" TUBE
QE-901
SECTION 20-8A
1
10' ACCEL
BEAM
STOPPER
10' ACCEL
ACCEL
AD
PIC
PEN. 20-17
10'
LINAC HOUSING SIDEW ALL
P E N . 21 -1
PIC
QU
Fe 1
PEN. 20-16
PEN. 20-15
OT
R5
LINAC HOUSING SIDEW ALL
3
BP
M
OT
R4
BP
M
12
Pb 3
13
0 1 , 0 2 ... ETC. ARE POINT-SOURCE LOCATIONS ALONG THE HE BYPASS LINE
BP
M
11
B
DL1 Bend
OP
PE
R
C
ST
SC
6
KE
R
RF
BSOIC
A
9
LI
NA
C
RA
D
... ETC. ARE SIX SOURCE AREAS ALONG THE DRIFT REGION
KIC
UN
DU
LA
TO
R
TO
10
N
BP
M
D
IF
IC
AT
IO
BP
M
M
O
2
U
RC
E
Laser Heater
OT
R
SO
OR
BP YA
G
M
7
3
QU
AD
10
'A
CC
EL
ER
AT
SC
5
LI
G
HT
SI
D
EW
AL
L
QU
BP
M
AD
8
HO
US
IN
G
3
H
ER
EN
T
1/22/2004
1 , 2
6
YA
BP G 2
M
5
C
O
SC
4
Gun Diagnostics
RF
Cav
.
SC
3
LI
NA
C
ER
AT
OR
QU
AD
4
LINAC HOUSING SIDEW ALL
LI
N
AC
QU
AD
BP
M
BP
M
SC
X-Y 2
BP
M
10
'A
CC
EL
3
FC
Y A 3,
G
C
M2
CM
2
FC
YA 2,
G
KEY:
L0-1 & L0-2
3-m SLAC Sections
10' HIGH
S2
M1
BP
M
DE
QU
A
QU D
AD
C
HO
BP
M
AT
U HV
GA AL
TE L
VA ME
LV TA
ES L
PO
HO RC
LD UPIN
ER
EC
VA
LV
E
MA
SC
G
Sp N E
QU 1 X
ec TIC
A D -Y,
tro
.
YA
G
OM
CA
T
RF H OD
GU E
N
E0
1
1
ER
VA
LV
E
S1
OT
VA R3
LV
E
2
EN
T CH
A MB
VA
CU
EA
TM
LO
AS NG
SE BE
MB LL
L OW
Y
S
Load Lock
John N. Galayda
galayda@slac.stanford.edu
QS0 3
O TR
FC 4
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
Courtesy
L.Xiao
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 )
27 October 2005
LCLS Facility Advisory Committee
John N. Galayda
galayda@slac.stanford.edu
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
27 October 2005
LCLS Facility Advisory Committee
John N. Galayda
galayda@slac.stanford.edu
Architecture Thales Laser System
119MHz
400mW
Femtolasers Oscillator
Femtosource Scientific 20s
(chirped mirrors)
150ps
80mW
119MHz
Stretcher
5W, 119MHZ
Spectra Physics
MILLENIA Vs
1.5mx3.75m footprint
(~4.5’x11.5’)
DAZZLER
20 mJ, 120 Hz
RGA
Regen Amp
JEDI #1
100 mJ,120 Hz
1mJ, 120Hz
Amplifiers are not cryo-cooled
IR stability <1%rms (short term)
Pre-Amp
4-pass Bowtie
80 mJ, 120 Hz
>20mJ, 120Hz
To
cathode
>2.5mJ, 120Hz
THG
Compressor
>25mJ, 120Hz
27 October 2005
LCLS Facility Advisory Committee
Amplifier
2-pass Bowtie
>40mJ, 120Hz
JEDI #2
100 mJ,120 Hz
100 mJ, 120 Hz
John N. Galayda
galayda@slac.stanford.edu
1.3 Linac
LCLS Klystron
Fab Complete
Injector Quad
first article
measured
27 October 2005
LCLS Facility Advisory Committee
BC-1 Dipoles
ordered
John N. Galayda
galayda@slac.stanford.edu
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)
27 October 2005
LCLS Facility Advisory Committee
John N. Galayda
galayda@slac.stanford.edu
27 October 2005
LCLS Facility Advisory Committee
John N. Galayda
galayda@slac.stanford.edu
1.4 Baby Pictures (cont’d)
Magnetized blocks
27 October 2005
LCLS Facility Advisory Committee
Magnet Poles
John N. Galayda
galayda@slac.stanford.edu
1.9 Conventional Facilities
Sector 20 Injector
Magnet Meas.
2/28/06 Completion
27 October 2005
LCLS Facility Advisory Committee
John N. Galayda
galayda@slac.stanford.edu
FFTB Shielding
27 October 2005
LCLS Facility Advisory Committee
Sector 24 Stairs
John N. Galayda
galayda@slac.stanford.edu
Next Steps
Construction manager
Cost estimate
Construct road?
Construct tunneling portal?
Plan FFTB decommissioning
Date will be between April and June
27 October 2005
LCLS Facility Advisory Committee
John N. Galayda
galayda@slac.stanford.edu
1.5
New layout of FEE
Incorporates Offset Mirrors
7 ft Fe
STOP
3 ft concrete
Offset
Mirrors
GAS ATTEN
SOLID ATTEN
COLLIM
~30m
27 October 2005
LCLS Facility Advisory Committee
John N. Galayda
galayda@slac.stanford.edu
4 ft Fe
STOP
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
27 October 2005
LCLS Facility Advisory Committee
John N. Galayda
galayda@slac.stanford.edu
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
27 October 2005
LCLS Facility Advisory Committee
John N. Galayda
galayda@slac.stanford.edu
1.9 New FEH design in baseline
Entrance
14ft tunnel
Fire door
Fire door
46ft tunnel
passage below
beam pipe
6ft
28x33ft
hutch
15x25ft
control cabin
Sliding
hutch door
10ft
10ft
29x33ft
hutch
36x33ft
hutch
10ft
30ft transition
Toilets
20ft tunnel
Future tunnel to
other stations
212ft
27 October 2005
LCLS Facility Advisory Committee
John N. Galayda
galayda@slac.stanford.edu
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
27 October 2005
LCLS Facility Advisory Committee
John N. Galayda
galayda@slac.stanford.edu
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
27 October 2005
LCLS Facility Advisory Committee
John N. Galayda
galayda@slac.stanford.edu
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
27 October 2005
LCLS Facility Advisory Committee
John N. Galayda
galayda@slac.stanford.edu
3rd Undulator Line
Near
Expt.
Hall
XR tunnel shortened
from 250m to 230m
2nd Undulator Line
Entrance
14ft tunnel
15x25ft
control cabin
46ft tunnel
28x33ft
hutch 1
20ft tunnel
27 October 2005
LCLS Facility Advisory Committee
29x33ft
hutch 2
212ft
John N. Galayda
galayda@slac.stanford.edu
36x33ft
hutch 3
Central Lab Office
Complex (CLOC)
Capacity >260
78,000 GSF Total
150-Seat Conference
Room
Leave 3rd floor unfinished
Delete 3rd floor?
27 October 2005
LCLS Facility Advisory Committee
John N. Galayda
galayda@slac.stanford.edu
Continuing Resolution
No slowdown unless CR extends past
December
CF, undulator assembly must go forward to
stay on schedule
Will ask for help.
27 October 2005
LCLS Facility Advisory Committee
John N. Galayda
galayda@slac.stanford.edu
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.
27 October 2005
LCLS Facility Advisory Committee
John N. Galayda
galayda@slac.stanford.edu
LCLS
Project
Organization
(Sep05)
27 October 2005
LCLS Facility Advisory Committee
John N. Galayda
galayda@slac.stanford.edu
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-lclsinternal.slac.stanford.edu/projectspace_L2/Project_Office/Risk_Registry_Document
s/LCLS_risk_registry_September_05.pdf
27 October 2005
LCLS Facility Advisory Committee
John N. Galayda
galayda@slac.stanford.edu
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.
27 October 2005
LCLS Facility Advisory Committee
John N. Galayda
galayda@slac.stanford.edu
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.
27 October 2005
LCLS Facility Advisory Committee
John N. Galayda
galayda@slac.stanford.edu
…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.
27 October 2005
LCLS Facility Advisory Committee
John N. Galayda
galayda@slac.stanford.edu
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.
27 October 2005
LCLS Facility Advisory Committee
John N. Galayda
galayda@slac.stanford.edu
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.
27 October 2005
LCLS Facility Advisory Committee
John N. Galayda
galayda@slac.stanford.edu
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.
27 October 2005
LCLS Facility Advisory Committee
John N. Galayda
galayda@slac.stanford.edu
Charge to Committee
Consider responses to last review
Consider planned/proposed scope changes
to accommodate conventional facilities costs
27 October 2005
LCLS Facility Advisory Committee
John N. Galayda
galayda@slac.stanford.edu
End of Presentation
27 October 2005
LCLS Facility Advisory Committee
John N. Galayda
galayda@slac.stanford.edu