Engineering Overview
Nadine Kurita
Organization
Engineering Processes
Standards
Reviews
Specifications/Requirements/ICDs
Configuration Management
Value Management
Reporting
Engineering Status
Schedule
Summary
LUSI DOE Review July 23, 2007
Engineering Overview
1
Nadine Kurita
kurita@slac.stanford.edu
Engineering Organization
LUSI
N. Kurita
Chief Engineer
CXI WBS 1.3
J.C. Castagna - acting
System Manager
M. Kosovsky
J.C. Castagna
SLAC Designer2
LUSI DOE Review July 23, 2007
Engineering Overview
2
XPP WBS 1.2
R. Pope
System Manager
XCS WBS 1.4
N. Kurita – acting
TBD
System Manager
D. Arnett
J. Defever
SLAC Designer1
TBD
Starts 2009
Diagnostics WBS 1.5
N. Kurita
System Manager
D. Arnett
Mechanical Engineer1
Design & Document
Control
D. Arnett
Design Supervisor
Database Support
A. Chan (LCLS)
SLAC Design Staff
Nadine Kurita
kurita@slac.stanford.edu
Engineering Organization (2)
System Managers
Reports to Chief Engineer
Responsible for all technical aspects of the project
Responsible for reporting cost and schedule (earned value)
Control Account Manager (CAM)
Responsible for supervising daily activities of subordinate
engineers, design engineers and designers
Responsible for keeping management informed on critical
issues, delays, etc.
Works with upper management to make critical decisions
Design Supervisor
Responsible for design standards
Checking, sign off approval and releasing drawings
LUSI DOE Review July 23, 2007
Engineering Overview
3
Nadine Kurita
kurita@slac.stanford.edu
Engineering Organization (3)
2008 Manpower Requirements
Maximum load for engineering per current estimates
5 FTE Mechanical Engineers
2 - 3 FTE Mechanical Designers
Current Engineering Staff
Nadine Kurita – Chief Engineer, Mechanical Engineer
Rodd Pope – System Engineer, Mechanical Engineer
Jean-Charles Castagna – Mechanical Engineer
Michael Kosovsky – Mechanical Design Engineer
Jim Defever – Mechanical Engineer (Consultant)
Donald Arnett – Design Supervisor, Design Engineer
LUSI DOE Review July 23, 2007
Engineering Overview
4
Nadine Kurita
kurita@slac.stanford.edu
Engineering Organization (4)
Staffing Progress
System Manager hiring status
Offer received June 26th
Junior Mechanical Engineer requisition open – interviewing
Deputy System Manager for diagnostics
2 SLAC Designers in August/September
Design staff available due to reduction in peak LCLS and HEP
personnel
Additional design staff will be available if our needs increase
LCLS will have engineers that could be matrixed if our needs
increase
This will fulfill our engineering staff requirement for
2008
LUSI DOE Review July 23, 2007
Engineering Overview
5
Nadine Kurita
kurita@slac.stanford.edu
Engineering Processes – Standards
Formalize Design Standards
 Incorporate SLAC mechanical design standards
 Developed standard engineering notes
 Developed Solid Edge Tool (3D parametric software)
Formalize Manufacturing Practices
LUSI Procedures and Travellers
Produced for critical equipment
Configuration controlled
History archived via LUSI sharepoint
Non-Compliance Reports (NCRs), Inspection Reports
History archived via LUSI sharepoint
LUSI DOE Review July 23, 2007
Engineering Overview
6
Nadine Kurita
kurita@slac.stanford.edu
Engineering Processes - Reviews
Design reviews are milestones in our schedule
Essential to ensure the designs meet their prescribed
functionality
Value engineering
LUSI DOE Review July 23, 2007
Engineering Overview
7
Nadine Kurita
kurita@slac.stanford.edu
Engineering Processes - Reviews (2)
System Concept Review
Global (CXI, XPP, XCS, Controls and Data System)
Goal
Approve the objectives and physics requirements
Approval of the conceptual design approach
Presents the following
Objectives and the requirements of the system
Physics Requirements Document complete and ready for sign off
Proposed approach to meet the requirements
Major system interfaces
Major design alternatives considered
Safety issues
Assessment of risk areas
After closure of action items this approves the baseline
design
LUSI DOE Review July 23, 2007
Engineering Overview
8
Nadine Kurita
kurita@slac.stanford.edu
Engineering Processes – Reviews (3)
Preliminary Design Reviews
Component specific
Final design details are not required
Goal
Approval of the component specifications & preliminary design
Approval to complete final design
Approval to fabricate test articles
Presents the following:
Science/technical objectives, requirements, general specification
Engineering Speciation Document complete and ready for sign off
Preliminary design & engineering analyses
Design interfaces
Closure of actions from previous review/changes since the last review
Control/software requirements and design
Quality control, reliability
Safety
Cost & schedules
After closure of action items preliminary design approved. Move to
final design
LUSI DOE Review July 23, 2007
Engineering Overview
9
Nadine Kurita
kurita@slac.stanford.edu
Engineering Processes – Reviews (4)
Final Design Reviews
Component specific
Goal
Approval of the final design, cost and schedule
Approval to complete detail drawings
Approval to start procurement & fabrication
Presents the following:
Science/technical objectives, requirements & specifications
Review closure of actions from the Preliminary Design Review
Final design and analyses
Test results and design margins
Control methods for all safety hazards
Approved safety reviews as required
Identified problem areas/open issues
Cost & schedule
After closure of action items long lead items will be purchased,
detail drawings completed and fabrication begins
LUSI DOE Review July 23, 2007
Engineering Overview
10
Nadine Kurita
kurita@slac.stanford.edu
Engineering Processes – Reviews (5)
Status Reviews
Component specific as needed
Not a schedule milestone
Goal
Provides status on drawings, procurement and manufacturing
Presents the following:
Status of assembly and detail drawings
Approval process per Mechanical Department standards
Procedures, travellers, inspection and testing plans
Status of procurement and manufacturing
Installation plans
Operational requirements/procedures
checkout, testing, maintenance
Review closure of action items from the FDR
Cost and schedule update
LUSI DOE Review July 23, 2007
Engineering Overview
11
Nadine Kurita
kurita@slac.stanford.edu
Engineering Processes – Reviews (6)
Safety Reviews
Safety Overview Committee Review
Completed December 2006 and identified the following
committee reviews:
Earthquake Reviews
Radiation Safety Reviews
Laser Safety Reviews
Electrical Safety Reviews
Hoisting and Rigging Safety Committee
Fire Marshall
Hazardous Experimental Equipment Committee
LUSI DOE Review July 23, 2007
Engineering Overview
12
Nadine Kurita
kurita@slac.stanford.edu
Engineering Process – Requirements
Physics Requirements Documents (PRD)
Defines functionality of the component
Provides detailed physics/science requirements
Basis for engineering design
Required for the System Concept Review
Approved by Science Team Leaders and LUSI Project Director
Engineering Specification Document (ESD)
General specifications & engineering specifications to meet the PRD
Covers additional requirements not in the PRD
Space constraints, environment, etc.
Required for the Preliminary Design Review
Approved by Chief Engineer, Scientist, Project Director
Interface Control Documents (ICD)
Describes the boundaries of one system with respect to another
Physical interface between the two
Responsibilities
Required for the Preliminary Design Review
Approved by all involved system managers
LUSI DOE Review July 23, 2007
Engineering Overview
13
Nadine Kurita
kurita@slac.stanford.edu
LUSI DOE Review July 23, 2007
Engineering Overview
14
Nadine Kurita
kurita@slac.stanford.edu
Engineering Process – Requirements
Technical Purchase Specifications
Mandates the technical, quality and procurement
specifications for a purchased item
Engineering Notes
Documents engineering analysis and other information
critical to the design of the component
These documents are all configuration controlled
LUSI DOE Review July 23, 2007
Engineering Overview
15
Nadine Kurita
kurita@slac.stanford.edu
Configuration Management - Document Control
Document Control
Configuration control all critical project documents
Management
PEP, Acquisition Strategy, QIP, Value Management, …
Technical
PRDs, ESDs, ICDs, Design Reviews, ...
Fabrication
Procedures, travellers, ...
Installation
Procedures, travellers, ...
Design reviews will be archived
LUSI DOE Review July 23, 2007
Engineering Overview
16
Nadine Kurita
kurita@slac.stanford.edu
Configuration Management – Drawings/Specifications
Utilize existing SLAC Document Control System and SLAC
Sharepoint database
3D-models will use SLAC Mechanical Departments Project
Management Database for configuration control and
archiving
Drawings and specifications
Approved by the list of “approvers”
Design review process is not required for approval
Once the document is signed by all the approvers it is
released to SLAC Document Control
LUSI DOE Review July 23, 2007
Engineering Overview
17
Nadine Kurita
kurita@slac.stanford.edu
Configuration Management - ECOs
Engineering Change Orders
Implementing an engineering change order process
Keeps detailed revision history
Increase efficiency of implementing and documenting
design and manufacturing changes
Allows for quick approval of implementing changes
Helps to maintains these changes in the supporting
design/fabrication documents
LUSI DOE Review July 23, 2007
Engineering Overview
18
Nadine Kurita
kurita@slac.stanford.edu
Value Management
Consistent with DOE Value Management,
DOE
order 413.3 and OMB Circular A-131
LUSI Value Management Plan completed, PM-391000-02 R0
Executed LUSI Value Management Plan
Conducted with internal and external reviewers
4 alternative solutions identified
Final report pending
LUSI Value Management principles are applied to all
LUSI engineering tasks
LUSI DOE Review July 23, 2007
Engineering Overview
19
Nadine Kurita
kurita@slac.stanford.edu
LUSI Reporting
Monthly Reports to the DOE after achieving CD2a
Technical status
Earned value performance. LUSI Project Management Cost &
Schedule system is based on,
B-Factory Project - 2000 Award for the Program and Project
Management
SPEAR3 – 2004 Secretary's Excellence in Acquisition Award
GLAST
LCLS
60% CAMS participated in PEP-II,SPEAR3, GLAST and/or LCLS
Change Control Log
LUSI DOE Review July 23, 2007
Engineering Overview
20
Nadine Kurita
kurita@slac.stanford.edu
Engineering Status
X-ray Pump Probe
Overall layouts developed for both CD4a and CD4b
Diffractometer
PRD reviewed and approved by team leaders in May ’07 – CRITICAL
PATH ITEM for CD4-a
Preliminary concepts of the diffractometer developed. Starting to work
with vendors
Monochromator
Preliminary concepts developed
LUSI DOE Review July 23, 2007
Engineering Overview
21
Nadine Kurita
kurita@slac.stanford.edu
Laser System
(Fundamental)
Small Angle
Scattering
Wavelength
Conversion
X-Ray Pump Probe Layout
X-ray
Diffractometer
Offset
Monochromator
X-ray Pump-Probe Instrument
LUSI DOE Review July 23, 2007
Engineering Overview
22
Nadine Kurita
kurita@slac.stanford.edu
Engineering Status (2)
Coherent X-Ray Imaging (CXI)
Conceptual layouts developed for both CD4a and CD4b
Met with team leaders to discuss sample chamber requirements in
May 2007
Developed multiple sample chamber approaches. CRITICAL PATH ITEM
FOR CD4a
LUSI DOE Review July 23, 2007
Engineering Overview
23
Nadine Kurita
kurita@slac.stanford.edu
CXI Sample Chamber Design Approach #1
LUSI DOE Review July 23, 2007
Engineering Overview
24
Nadine Kurita
kurita@slac.stanford.edu
Engineering Status (3)
X-Ray Correlation Spectroscopy (XCS)
Conceptual layout completed
EO Device
Diagnostics
Electro-Optic Timing Device
Draft of the Engineering Specification
Document completed
Preliminary design near completion
Preliminary Design Review in
October 2007 ahead of schedule
LUSI DOE Review July 23, 2007
Engineering Overview
25
Nadine Kurita
kurita@slac.stanford.edu
Engineering Status (4)
Position Monitor & Intensity Monitor Pop-in
Alternate concepts developed
Hard X-Ray Intensity/Position Monitor Leave-in
Alternate concepts developed
Pop-in Diode
Intensity Monitor
Leave In Monitor
LUSI DOE Review July 23, 2007
Engineering Overview
26
Pop-in
Position
Monitor
Nadine Kurita
kurita@slac.stanford.edu
XPP Critical Path
Diffractometer
long Lead
item
Vacuum supports
low risk,
occurs last
in the design
process
LUSI DOE Review July 23, 2007
Engineering Overview
27
Nadine Kurita
kurita@slac.stanford.edu
CXI Critical Path
Slit System
manpower
limited, could
be expedited
Sample Chamber
critical design,
incorporates
numerous
experiments
Low risk, vacuum
system follows after
critical components
designed.
LUSI DOE Review July 23, 2007
Engineering Overview
28
Nadine Kurita
kurita@slac.stanford.edu
Major Milestones
Jul ’07
Aug ’07
Sep ’07
Oct ’07
Oct ’07
Nov ’07
Nov ’07
Dec ’07
LUSI DOE Review July 23, 2007
Engineering Overview
29
CD1 Review
XPP System Concept Review
CXI System Concept Review
Diagnostic System Concept Review
EO Monitor Final Design Review
Diffractometer Final Design Review
Be Lenses Preliminary Design Review
CD2a
Nadine Kurita
kurita@slac.stanford.edu
Major Milestones (2)
Jan ’08
Jan’07
Jan ’07
Feb ’08
Mar ’08
Apr ’08
May ’08
May ’08
Jul ’08
Jul ’08
LUSI DOE Review July 23, 2007
Engineering Overview
30
Sample Chamber Preliminary Design Review (PDR)
Hard X-Ray IO PDR
Be Lenses Final Design Review (FDR)
CXI Pulse Picker PDR
Hard X-Ray Intensity Monitor FDR
XPP Diffractometer non-recurring engineering
CXI Sample Chamber & Pulse Picker FDR
Position Monitor & Pop-in IO monitor FDR
Slits FDR
CD3a
Nadine Kurita
kurita@slac.stanford.edu
Major Milestones (3)
Jul ’08
Jul ’08
Jul ’08
Jan ’09
Apr ’09
Sep ’09
Sep ’09
Oct ’09
Nov ’09
Feb ’10
Mar ’10
Mar ’12
LUSI DOE Review July 23, 2007
Engineering Overview
31
Start procurement for CXI and XPP
Start fabrication of XPP Diffractometer
Award Sample Chamber
All major CD4a components received
All major CD4a components ready for installation
CD4a installation complete
XPP Detector installed
CD2b
Particle Injector received
CD4a
CD3b
CD4b
Nadine Kurita
kurita@slac.stanford.edu
Summary
Engineering/Scientist teams have made significant
design progress to date
LUSI has an established conceptual design with a consistent
cost estimate. Over 50% of the fabrication estimates came
from vendor quotations, catalogs, or previous orders
The technical scope of LUSI has converged
Preliminary resource loaded schedule for planned
CD4a deliverables is established and consistent with
the funding profile
LUSI DOE Review July 23, 2007
Engineering Overview
32
Nadine Kurita
kurita@slac.stanford.edu
Summary (2)
LUSI engineering staffing is currently at 70% of its
peak expected load
Staff consists of experienced SLAC (SSRL, LCLS, HEP)
mechanical engineers and design engineers
Staff is informed in quality and trained in ES&H issues in
their area of expertise
Working organization with well understood processes
Excellent communication and interfacing with partner
labs, LCLS and sub-systems
LUSI DOE Review July 23, 2007
Engineering Overview
33
Nadine Kurita
kurita@slac.stanford.edu
Summary (3)
Future work
Complete hiring or matrixing LCLS engineering staff
Finalize the details on the design scope and requirements
Complete preliminary designs
Engineering staff is ready to move on to the CD-2
phase of the project!
LUSI DOE Review July 23, 2007
Engineering Overview
34
Nadine Kurita
kurita@slac.stanford.edu
End of Presentation
LUSI DOE Review Jan 23, 2007
Coherent Imaging (WBS 1.3)
J. B. Hastings
jbh@slac.stanford.edu