Undulator System Review Closeout Erik Johnson, Kem Robinson, Dieter Walz

Undulator System
Review Closeout
Erik Johnson, Kem Robinson,
Dieter Walz
4 March 2004
Specific Charge Aspects
The scope of this review encompasses the entire
undulator system, and includes the undulator magnet
proper, the vacuum system, the diagnostics, the
controls, and management/cost/schedule related
issues. As such, the basic charge to the committee is:
To review the LCLS undulator system and to provide advice on
the overall system and the various subsystem designs and
their suitability to meet the performance specifications, on the
installation and commissioning plan, and on the overall project
management of the LCLS undulator system.
Specific Charge Questions
Review and evaluate the complete system design. Is the
maturity of the design known to the level of detail to
justify setting the cost and schedule performance
baseline at this time?
Not at this time. Many of the subsystems are well
prepared to be baselined, but the integrated system has
many holes and gaps where uncertainties are quite large
and approaches are not even at a concept design level.
Identify any open design issues that should be
addressed prior to setting the baseline.
The integration of rfBPM, quadrupole, vacuum chamber,
the cradle (and its design) are of concern. Additional
thought and direction on logistics, installation and handling
are necessary as well (see specific section comments).
Specific Charge Questions
(cont. [1])
Is the management team adequately structured for completing
the LCLS design?
Yes, with one possible absence. Clear responsibility for total
system integration, interfaces and engineering was not identified.
A strong project engineering/manager would be very useful.
Are there adequate resources and of the correct skill type to
meet the needs of the project?
The present team shows very strong technical and project
management strength. However, the dramatic increases in effort
required in FY05 are a cause for concern. Augmenting resources
so quickly inevitably resulted in a transitional period of decreased
productivity and a slowing of progress. It is not clear that this has
been adequately anticipated.
Specific Charge Questions
(cont. [2])
Is the project progressing adequately?
Yes, with the resources and funding that are
available considerable progress has been made.
Progress since the November review is particularly
Specific Charge Aspect
“Note that this is a pre-baseline (conceptual) design review.”
From the DOE Manual 413.3 Concerning CD-2
Approval of the Performance Baseline marks the beginning of performance
tracking. It also authorizes submission of the total project budget request.
Key activities that take place leading up to the approval include preliminary
design; development of key performance, scope and schedule parameters;
risk assessment; establishment of a performance measurement system;
identification of project interfaces; and development of the Project
Execution Plan.
From the DOE Manual 413.3 Concerning Preliminary Design.
Preliminary design initiates the process of converting concepts to a design
appropriate for procurement or construction. This stage of the design is
complete when it provides sufficient information to support development of
the Performance Baseline. The appropriate completion percentage is
dependent upon the project. … For complex projects, the percentage of
design may not be definitive because these projects may have many
subsystems undergoing concurrent designs that may be at various stages of
completion. Scientific systems, such as accelerators and detectors,
production and manufacturing facilities, spacecraft and other systems, do
not follow a linear process in which all subsystems reach the same maturity
at the same time. Concurrency in these types of projects increases the risk
because each subsystem design is dependent upon the design maturity of
other subsystems.
General Comments
The simple question to ask?
Based on your present knowledge would you be willing to
commit to build this for a fixed price at this time?
Even though the undulator magnet is the critical path, there are
many very near critical path items that are at a design stage
which elevates concern.
It is quite possible that very soon the critical path will no longer
be through the undulator magnet procurements.
A Risk Registry and Issues Log should be developed and
implemented for the entire undulator system.
When producing a cost/budget estimate provide a technology
maturity and risk (technical, cost, schedule) assessment at the
same time as providing a contingent-free (50%) number.
Undulator Magnet Systems
Pleased to see assignment of a cost account manager
to magnet systems that is also responsible for areas
less mature in design development
Developments since last review commendable
Use of canted jaw Keff adjustment
Removal of additional mechanical systems
Schedule and procurement approach
NdFeB vs Sm2Co17
Delay in addressing previous recommendations has now
precluded action in this area
Experimental data does not strongly support conclusion
Operational risks identified in November 2003 review still
remain and have not been addressed
Committee is not ready to endorse NdFeB material choice
Two-vendor approach deemed essential
Undulator Magnet Systems (cont.)
Procure the strongbacks, magnets, poles and granite (from same
quarry face) from single source for delivery to undulator magnet
Quadrupoles should have a dithering capability
Cradle requires concentrated effort prior to baseline
Requirements for cradle and undulator retraction not established
Manual retraction of undulator magnet valuable for
Undulator magnet has relatively low risk at this time
On cradle: align BPM / quad to undulator magnet not reverse
Concentrate on resolving design or prototyping complete system
even at the expense of delay in delivery of undulator magnet
first article
Magnetic Measurements
Demonstrated measurements very good
Approaches sound and well thought out
Measurement capabilities well understood
Fiducialization method looks good
Magnetic needles the right approach
Coordinate measuring system approach should allow
integration of undulator system
Techniques well established and evolved
Effort to fully reduce to production may need to be revisited.
Logistics and workflow in SLAC MMF need to be
carefully studied
Moving an undulator longitudinally is relatively easy
Moving an undulator transversely or rotationally is is more
Interfaces/Support/Env. Concerns
Environment evaluation provides important guidance
Emphasizes need for beam based alignment
BPM’s and adjustable quads
Granite prototype could be deferred
Trade information available should be evaluated
Look carefully at support of granite benches
Size requirements should be examined
Access/ Installation to be factored into design
Air flow concern for thermal gradients
Integrated system performance should be modeled
Vacuum System
Trade study for chamber design very good
Follow up with prototypes
Fabricability and finish
Vacuum performance (voids/leaks)
Mechanical performance (alignment stability)
Transition pieces need evaluation wrt beam physics
Shape changes
Bellows motions
Electrical conductivity/continuity through transitions
Projected system performance during commissioning
Pumping, gas loading, recovery time
Requirements placed on diagnostics by beam based
alignment are well described
Deferring intra-undulator x-ray diagnostics seems to
be a sound decision
Electron BPM near critical path
Prototype development should be given very high priority
Work on Optical Diagnostics at early stages
Needs to proceed to more detailed design
Should integrate consideration of required chamber
transitions into the FEL physics
Prototype system would be valuable for proving out system
integration approach
Good Overall Approach
Undulator as stand alone control system
Capitalize on existing platforms/software
Task envelope well described
Good knowledge base for detailed development
Potential Concerns
Integration with SLAC controls needs early attention
Rapid jump in staffing in FY05
Concluding Comments
“Keep on swimming”