C l o s e o u t P r e s e n t a t i o n D i r e c t o r ’ s C D - 1 / 3 a ... - … · 2017. 11. 30. · Closeout Presentation 2 . 0 I n t r o d u c t i o n A Director’s CD -1/3a

Closeout Presentation

Director’s CD-1/3a Review of

HL-LHC Accelerator Upgrade Project

June 13-15, 2017


This page intentionally left blank

Director’s CD-1 Review of HL-LHC Accelerator Upgrade Project June 13-15, 2017

Page 2 of 30


Table of Contents

Table of Contents 3

Executive Summary 5

Introduction 6

Technical Systems 7

Magnets

Crab Cavities

Project Management

7

8

9

Cost and Schedule 9

ESH&Q 10

Management 11

Appendices 12


Page 3 of 30


This page intentionally left blank


Page 4 of 30


1.0 Executive Summary


Page 5 of 30


2.0 Introduction A Director’s CD-1/3a Review of the HL-LHC Accelerator Upgrade Project (AUP) was held on June 13-15, 2017 at Fermilab. The focus of this review is the readiness of the project to proceed to the DOE CD-1/3a review scheduled for August 8-10, 2017.

The AUP Project was established to fulfill a US contribution to the accelerator portion of the HL-LHC project at CERN by delivering items that will maximize the scientific return for bothe CERN and US scientists. The selected alternative includes delivery of Q1 and Q3 cryo assemblies (focusing magnets) using Nb3Sn technology and dressed radio frequency dipole crab cavities. AUP is hosted at Fermilab and includes collaborators Brookhaven National Lab, Lawrence Berkeley Lab, Old Dominion University, and the Florida National High Field Magnet Lab.


Page 6 of 30


3.0 Technical 3.1 Magnets

Subcommittee: George Biallas, Herman ten Kate, Bill Soyars, Akira Yamamoto

Charge Questions:

● Have performance requirements been appropriately and sufficiently defined for this stage of the project?

Yes. Functional Requirements Specifications are signed or in advanced draft for all Magnet Elements. The draft documents should be signed by the CD-1 Review.

● Is the conceptual design sound and likely to meet the performance requirements?

Yes. The technical presentations described how Requirement Specifications are met by Conceptual or Technical Design.

● Is the U.S. project scope well defined within the CERN HL-LHC project?

Yes. The International Cooperative Agreement is signed-off between CERN and DOE (as well as addenda specifying contributions to LHC). Preliminary agreement between HL-LHC Project Leader and the Hi-Lumi Project Manager on the scope is in place. That cooperative agreement should be finalized and agreed upon by CD-2.

● Does the conceptual design support the stated cost range and duration?

Yes. Cost and Schedule range based on a bottom-up estimate approach is credible and technical presenters owned the estimates.

● Is the need, technical justification and schedule justification sufficient to approve early materials procurement?

Yes. The case presented is very convincing. This early procurement is absolutely critical for timely execution of the project.

Findings

● Nb3Sn superconducting magnet technology has progressed with demonstrating accelerator quality performance required for the HL-LHC IR quadrupole magnets. This advancement includes the gradient reaching > 145 T/m with a bore diameter of 15 cm with a reasonable number of training quenches, as well as sufficiently high field quality and the reproducibility.

● The US-DOE LARP collaboration, in cooperation with CERN, has been functioning extremely well and has been taking an essential role in maturing the technology, enough for the project to move to Accelerator Upgrade Project phase as captured in the Conceptual Design Report and leading to


Page 7 of 30


projected CD1 approval for the magnet technology and CD3a approval for the Nb3Sn conductor procurement. LARP enabled two of the linchpins in the HL-LHC baseline, the Nb3Sn superconducting final focusing quadrupole magnets and the Crab Cavities.

● The DOE contribution to these Quadrupole Magnets is a vital “landmark” part of the HiLumi Upgrade to the LHC.

● The individual plans after the CD1 approval in each collaborating laboratory have been very carefully considered to prepare for the CD2 phase and further to meet the HL-LHC AUP project goal to be accomplished with the magnet delivery by 2024.

● The delivery requirement to Hi-Lumi is split into two Key Performance Parameters in the preliminary Project Execution Plan. Five Q1 Cryoassemblies and four Q3 Cryoassemblies, all with two quadrupole magnets each along with one additional Q3 magnet, and the parts for a second are considered “Threshold Performance”. “Objective Performance” adds the completion of the 10th cold mass, its vertical test and insertion into and test as the 5th Q3 Cryo-assembly.

● Eight Tested Quadrupole Cryoassemblies are required for a July 2024 installation in Hi-Lumi. Before that, a working prototype with the 4 m and the 4.2 m prototype magnets is needed for a prototype cryostat test in September of 2019 and the first Tested Quadrupole Assembly is needed for the String Test 1 in June of 2021.

● The response to International Review of the Inner Triplet Quadrupoles (MQXF) for HL-LHC solidified much of the Q1 and Q3 Program.

● The length of the Q1 and Q3 for the Hi-Lumi Project was fixed at 2 each 4.2 m to match the manufacturing and test infrastructure of the associated Laboratories. The Q2s, made by CERN are to be made 7.2 m long.

● CERN has agreed with the level of radiation hardness of the insulation used in the quadrupoles because of calculations showing that dose will be substantially the same as the original quadrupoles because of the new inner shield.

● The LARP collaboration among laboratories is a sophisticated technical management that is an example to all Laboratories. The Q1, Q3 HL-LHC AUP activities funded by DOE are split in about equal parts to Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (FNAL), Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL). In a cross-country shipping dominated program that uses existing resources of all the Labs, FNAL buys strand, delivers to LBNL where cable is made, FNAL and BNL make coils, LBNL assembles coils into cold masses, BNL tests and trains the cold masses vertically, FNAL incorporates the cold masses into Cryoassemblies and performs the final horizontal cold test and magnet measurement.

● Successful vertical tests of a full length (4.2 m) individual coil in a “mirror” configuration and successful tests of a short, 1.2 m short quadrupole at above required current show that the design is sound for the full-length quadrupole. Vertical tests of the two prototypes, 4 m and 4.2 m quadrupole magnets, still being made under the LARP Project are meant to fully qualify the design.


Page 8 of 30


● CD-0 Funding Profile did not support the delivery to Hi-Lumi according to Hi-Lumi “need by” dates. Recently DOE requested from the Project a Funding Profile that will satisfy Hi-Lumi “need-by” date for tunnel-bound elements (Cryo #8 and RFD #8) with at least 6 months float. That profile is included in this review.

● Costs for this review were developed per DOE Cost Estimating Guide (DOE-G-413.3-21). 55% of the cost estimates are categorized as “Preliminary” (Note that “Preliminary” is mid-range in the scale) and 22% are “Advanced” per this guideline.

● The Project plans to request advance approval of CD-3(a) construction for superconducting strand at the CD-1 Conceptual Design Review and similarly request advance approval of start of coil and magnet fabrication CD-3(b) at the CD-2 Performance Baseline Review.

● Coil Fabrication is on the critical path from the start of the project for about 4.5 years until a year and a half long series of jumps to the cascade of follow-on magnet making and testing activities.

● The sudden onset of project labor in 2018 is a result of most of the personnel transferring from LARP funding. Most of the personnel increases (about 4 per laboratory) for the project are for lower level technicians who are considered easy to recruit and train.

● The Magnet Risk Registry has 65+ Threats and 8 Opportunities.

● The plans for each stage of the project, built into the cost, include either loss of use or rework of strand, cable, coils, magnets and Cryoassemblies, before taking any contingency funds. The percent loss at each stage was taken from the LARP experience.

Comments

● It is of critical importance that the technical project management and system engineering in the three laboratories runs in a smooth way in order to be efficient in the day-by-day decision making on technical issues. To mitigate this risk, it is the committee’s opinion that the vacant Project Engineer position should be filled as soon as possible and that each of the heads of the three laboratory efforts need Deputies during the run of the project.

● The magnet protection scheme consisting of redundant outer quench-heaters and CLIQ is an adequate baseline design. The present plan to insert inner quench-heaters (where extensive use may cause insulation damage) is encouraged for use as a back up in the case of failure of the outer heater system. Emergency activation of the inner heater system over a limited time period would be justified until the outer quench heater circuitry can be repaired.

● The committee encourages the qualification of longitudinal seam welding of stainless steel cold mass shells as planned under LARP. This qualification is a critical engineering milestone to fully satisfy pressure code requirements in both the US and Europe.

● An unresolved issue from the International Review of the Inner Triplet Quadrupoles is the Pressure Vessel Status of the magnet cold mass. The vessel status has to fulfill the requirements of 10CFR851 for the testing phase at FNAL and the PED requirements at CERN. Negotiation is


Page 9 of 30


ongoing about this subject with CERN and the committee encourages resolution before the order of the kit for the Prototype Cryostat Test.

● The committee highly endorses the plans for each stage of the project to order more material or plan for more work at each production stage, thereby mitigating either loss-of-use or rework of the strand, cable, coils, magnets and Cryoassemblies. This practice will stop downstream activities from being starved and losing efficiency.

● The scope of the magnet testing in vertical and horizontal positions is not well defined. The committee is of the opinion that for a series production of magnets that go into the tunnel the testing effort shall not be more than strictly necessary in order to reduce risk of losing magnets. A wise scheme would be to perform training quenches in vertical test up to ultimate current, then perform a 2-300-2K thermal cycle and retest up to nominal current. During the horizontal final acceptance test the maximum test current can then be nominal plus a small excess current of some 100A.

● The committee agrees that the case for approval of CD-3(a) for early procurement of superconductor strand and manufacture of cable is vital for the success of the Project. After the residual LARP supplied strand is used up, the project would have a 4 month float in supplying conductor for coil production if the CD-3(a) is approved and the order placed in April of 2018.

Recommendations

1. Hire or assign the AUP Project Engineer who is to be the interface person to the Hi Lumi Project as soon as possible.

2. Obtain full time deputy for the L2 technical leader by CD2. Obtain part time deputy for the L3 technical leaders in the collaborating labs by CD2. This will facilitate the day-by-day technical leadership of the magnet project which is needed for a timely execution.

3. Proceed to the CD1 review process for the magnet project, and to the CD3a review process for the

Nb3Sn conductor procurement, in order to allow the project time frame to be managed in timely manner.

3.2 Crab Cavities

Subcommittee: Mark Champion, Mike Kelly

Charge Questions:

● Have performance requirements been appropriately and sufficiently defined for this stage of the project?


Page 10 of 30


Yes. Performance requirements are well defined, and formal agreements with CERN appear imminent.

● Is the conceptual design sound and likely to meet the performance requirements?

Yes, the conceptual design is sound and will likely meet or exceed performance requirements.

● Is the U.S. project scope well defined within the CERN HL-LHC project?

Yes.

● Does the conceptual design support the stated cost range and duration?

Yes. However, we are concerned that there may be some cases for which labor is underestimated.

Findings

● Crab cavities provide increased luminosity, and provide tuning flexibility and a capability for levelling

● The crab cavities were developed under the U.S. LHC Accelerator Research Program (LARP)

● HL-LHC expects that the U.S. contribution to crab cavities is ten (8+2) rf dipole (RFD) cavities; this includes testing in the U.S.

● AUP plans to produce 2 prototype and 12 production RFD cavities

● Prototype crab cavity field performance exceeds the HL-LHC requirements

● The U.S. contribution (dressed cavities) is required to be complete by summer-autumn 2023

● The AUP threshold KPP for crab cavities are eight dressed RFD cavities and components for two more cavities; completion of the final two cavities are considered part of the objective KPP’s

● The RFD dressed cavities account for 10% of the total project cost ($22.7M)

● The cavity risk assessment is in progress and completion is planned prior to the CD-1 review

● Separate critical paths have been identified for the crab cavities and magnets

● Major RFD cavity activities will be carried out within the FNAL Technical Division (TD)

● JLab will build the HOM dampers and field probe subcomponents

● The cavities will undergo surface processing at the joint ANL-FNAL facility


Page 11 of 30


● A new assembly building will be constructed adjacent to ICB and is planned for completion in August 2019. The AUP depends on the availability of this new building that is being provided by the laboratory (off project).

● The required operational deflecting voltage is 3.4 MV. The cavities are required to achieve 4.1 MV in qualification testing to ensure adequate margin.

● Other functional requirements have been tabulated and provided to HL-LHC for approval

● The Lorentz force detuning requirement that the magnitude be less than -865 Hz/(MV/m)2. The largest magnitude for the prototypes was -851 Hz/(MV/m)2

● The required frequency sensitivity to pressure, dF/dp, is less than 150 Hz/mbar. Measured Df/dp = -56 Hz/torr for the first rf dipole cavity.

● Fundamental power couplers are not in the AUP crab cavity scope. These couplers will be provided by HL-LHC and installed during string assembly.

● The helium vessel design is conceptual at this time

● The cryomodule static heat load to 2 K is expected to be 30 W maximum. The allowable dynamic heat load per cavity is 10 W, consistent with the 50 W per cryomodule design limit.

● The magnetic shielding will consist of two layers, one layer inside the cavity helium vessel, the other layer outside of the dressed cavity package

● Hydrogen degassing of the niobium cavities will be performed

● Qualified RFD cavities will be shipped to HL-LHC cleaned, sealed and under vacuum. HOM couplers, a unity (test) coupler, and the rf pickup will be installed.

● Three FTEs will support the FY18 crab cavity effort

● The ANL and JLab personnel are not included in the labor profile because the services provided are handled as procurements

● The weight of a dressed crab cavity is approximately 400 pounds. Some handling tooling and fixtures may require modification.

Comments

● The crab cavity functional requirements, high-level engineering requirements, interfaces and supporting documentation are in an advanced state, and the formal agreement with HL-LHC on these appears imminent

● For the entire AUP: Do not underemphasize the collaborative nature of the project.


Page 12 of 30


● It may be beneficial to select a single vendor to perform the cavity fabrication and the installation of the helium vessel to avoid finger pointing in case of performance degradation.

● It was stated that the new assembly building, ICB-A, is essential for execution of this project. It may be useful to place an item in the risk register to account for possible delays in the construction of this building.

● The cavity fabrication and testing labor profile (302.3.02) has a significant dip in FY20. It would be advisable to level the labor profile if possible by shifting activities in time.

● Consider procurement of an articulating robotic high-pressure rinsing system (similar to the system at FRIB) for the processing of the crab cavities.

● The plans for shipping the cavities to HL-LHC are not fully developed at this time. It may be useful to conduct a shipping test to verify the dressed cavity can be shipped without damage. In any case, shock requirements must be developed and implemented in the designs of the HOM couplers and field probes.

● The cavity field probe is relatively long, and care is needed to ensure the inner conductor does not vibrate during operation and can withstand shipping without damage.

● It would be useful at the CD-1 review to present a top-down look at the cost estimate by comparing to other projects. For example, FRIB half-wave cavities, LCLS-II cavities, and PIP-II half-wave cavities.

● The pressure and Lorentz detuning sensitivities for the crab cavities are large compared to most existing cavities. The as-built cavities should be expected to have considerable scatter. The impact of both the magnitude and scatter in these parameters should be understood by the AUP and HL-LHC.

● Power dissipation into the walls of any of the cavity ports, such as from e.g. multipacting, will be capable of producing a cavity thermal quench. This is particularly relevant since couplers will handle high transmitted power. The AUP and the HL-LHC should understand how much dissipated power can be tolerated in the cavity ports and probe this question during testing

● The rationale for procuring the HOM couplers and field probes from JLab was not presented, and the role of the ODU collaborators on this procurement was unclear

● Planned FY18 procurements for jacketed crab cavities will require considerable effort over the next several months. This may be challenging given that the roles and responsibilities are not yet well defined, and only 3 FTEs are planned for FY18.

Recommendations

4. Complete and sign the agreements with HL-LHC on the crab cavity functional requirements and

interfaces by the end of FY17.


Page 13 of 30


5. Identify and define the detailed roles for all personnel required to complete planned FY18 crab cavity work. Present this information at the CD-1 review.


Page 14 of 30


4.0 Project Management 4.1 Cost and Schedule

Subcommittee: David Leeb, Adam Helander, Luisella Lari

Charge Questions:

● Has a credible and sufficient alternatives analysis been performed?

Yes. The Alternatives Analysis is in draft form; it should be approved prior to the DOE CD-1 review.

● Are the estimated cost and schedule ranges credible and realistic for this stage of the project?

Yes; the cost and schedule ranges identified are supported by experience on the LHC Accelerator Research Program (LARP).

● Is adequate scope, cost, and schedule contingency included?

Yes; the impact of the new funding profile needs to be incorporated into a schedule which meets the Hi-Lumi need-by dates.

Findings

● The Alternatives Analysis identified two priorities: meeting LHC High Luminosity upgrade requirements, and providing “scientific return” while maximally exploiting US resources and expertise.

● The Alternatives Analysis considered three options: Construction of the magnets and cavities by Fermilab and partner laboratories as an in-kind contribution to Hi-Lumi, direct funding of the Hi-Lumi project to obtain the scope elsewhere, and taking no action.

● The draft Alternatives Analysis recommends the in-kind contribution as meeting both identified priorities.

● The project has developed a resource-loaded P6 schedule with c. 2500 activities, which is tied to a Cobra cost processor for the development of a time-phased estimate of “at-year” direct and overhead costs and contingency.

● The project has identified a critical path to project completion and to the delivery of magnets and cavities to Hi-Lumi. Critical deliveries to Hi-Lumi at CERN are provided with six months of float, and the project has identified, via Monte Carlo analysis, a requirement for twenty-four months of float. The project is recommending an additional year of schedule contingency on DOE CD-4 approval.


Page 15 of 30


Milestone P6 Early Dates

DOE CD-1 Review August 2017

CD-1/CD-3a approval (Conductor procurement) January 2018

CD-2 approval June 2018

CD-3b approval (Magnet construction) August 2018

CD-3 (full construction) October 2019

Hi-Lumi need-by for eight Cavities Summer/Fall 2023

Hi-Lumi “need-by” for eight magnet Cryo-assemblies Summer 2024

CD-4 approval December 2024

● The project has identified: Two T0 milestones (CD-0 and CD-4 approvals) Four T1 milestones No T2 or T3 milestones Twenty-five T4 milestones

● Hi-Lumi’s “need-by” dates for the eight assembled magnets in Cryo Assemblies, and for the first eight crab cavities, are not represented by external milestones in the P6 schedule.

● The reception of Cryo Assemblies from Hi-Lumi at CERN is not represented in the project schedule by external milestones.

● The AUP expects a revised funding profile from the DOE at any time.

● The project has generated detailed, bottoms-up, estimates of anticipated costs, totaling $168M, including overhead burdens and escalation, using FY17 as a project base year.

● Using the Fermilab standard estimate uncertainty factors (applied at the activity level, according to estimate maturity), Estimate Uncertainty of $41M is required.

● The project used Monte Carlo analysis to identify risk contingency at a 90% confidence level, resulting in a risk contingency of $18M.

● The project has considered and planned for the possibilities of yearly 6-month continuing resolutions in their obligation profile.


Page 16 of 30


● Following the DOE-G-413.3-21 “Cost Estimating Guide,” the project applied the AACEI estimating guidelines to the $221M point estimate (from the 50% confidence level figure) to generate a TPC cost range of $206M to $250M. (“Class” indicates the estimate maturity, according to AACEI’s definitions.)

Comments

● The cost and schedules ranges are tighter than typical at CD-1 due to the maturity of the magnets design.

● The detailed cost estimates could be validated by comparison to parametric estimates, and by endorsement by performing laboratory divisions/sections/centers.

● Presentation of cost estimate, contingency and range values in different review materials introduced difficulty in determining these values.

● Clearly describe the CD-3a request, including direct, overhead, estimate uncertainty and risk contingency values.

● There is a tight delivery schedule and limited float to match the Hi-Lumi need-by dates. The project should consider running a schedule Monte Carlo analysis on the these dates to verify sufficient schedule float.

● It will be easier to analyze the project schedule if the native P6 project is made available to reviewers.

● The justification for the “additional year of float” on the DOE CD-4 reporting date, beyond the 24 months called for by the schedule risk analysis, was not well-supported.

● The schedule does not contain sufficient external milestones identifying outside influences on the project, such as prototype testing, delivery of Cryo Assemblies from the Hi-Lumi project and the availability of the new laboratory Industrial Building.

● Consider adding currency exchange rate fluctuations to the risk register.

Recommendations

6. Seek DOE action on the draft Alternatives Analysis prior to the DOE CD-1 review.

7. Revise the schedule to reflect current projected project funding before the DOE CD-1 review.

8. More-clearly identify major project and external milestones, including sufficient proposed PEP milestones.

9. Proceed to the DOE CD-1 Review.


Page 17 of 30


4.2 ESH&Q

Subcommittee: Dave Mertz, Dave Rodgers

Charge Questions:

● Is ESH&Q being appropriately addressed for this stage of the project?

Yes, the ESH&Q document development is appropriate for the overall CD-1 project stage and for the CD-3a acquisition of the Nb3Sn conductors. More information specific to the non-host collaborating laboratories is needed to demonstrate project-wide readiness, though.

● Are Integrated Safety Management Principles being followed?

Yes, all three collaborating laboratories have documented safety programs that adequately implement ISM principles.

Findings

● The ES&H documents required for the DOE CD-1 review have been prepared:

○ Integrated Safety Management Plan (ISMP) ○ Preliminary Hazard Analysis Report (PHAR) ○ Preliminary Quality Assurance Plan (QAP) ○ NEPA Determination (CX) ○ Environmental Compliance Plan (included in ISMP) ○ Safeguards and Security (included in ISMP)

● The ESH coordinator has the skills and experience to successfully execute this function.

Comments

● The ESH coordinator has the skills and experience to successfully execute this function.

● The interface with the CERN safety organization and personnel is not well described.

● The roles and responsibilities of the project ES&H coordinator with the collaborating but non-host laboratories’ safety organizations and designated representatives is not fully defined.

● The relationship of the project ES&H function with of Argonne and Jefferson National Laboratories, which will perform work for the project, but not as collaborating institutions, is not defined.

● The NEPA CX determination provided was applicable to Fermilab, but its applicability to the other collaborating labs was not clear.


Page 18 of 30


● The Integrated Safety Management Plan describes primarily Fermilab processes with few references to the other collaborating labs.

● The Preliminary Hazard Analysis Report does not identify to which collaborating labs the identified hazards apply. The mitigation processes described are specific to Fermilab.

● The QA Plan is specific to Fermilab. The requirements for the other collaborating labs is provided but the project-specific plans from these labs were not available. A common framework should be presented.

● The ISM plan describes safeguards and security for Fermilab but does not address the other collaborating labs’ safeguards and security issues.

● More clearly show how the ES&H programs of the non-host laboratories support the ES&H goals of the project.

● More clearly explain the active participation of the project ES&H coordinator in the planning and execution of the project’s work and resulting benefits to the project.

Recommendations

10. For CD-1, clarify if separate NEPA determinations are needed for BNL and LBNL, and provide is required

11. Update the PHAR to more clearly identify the labs to which the hazards apply and make sure the mitigations are appropriate for the collaborating labs for CD-1.

12. Update the QA Plan to provide project-specific QA processes in a common framework applicable to all the collaborating labs by CD-1.

13. Update the ISMP by CD-1 to provide safeguards and security information from the BNL and LBNL, to clarify the ES&H relationship of Argonne and Jefferson National Laboratories with respect to the project, and to provide clear definition of the ES&H interface with CERN.

14. Update the ISMP by CD-2 to define the roles, responsibilities, authorities, and accountabilities (R2A2) of the project ES&H coordinator and the collaborating but non-host laboratory’s safety organizations and designated representatives.


Page 19 of 30


4.3 Management

Subcommittee: Jim Kerby, Daniela Leitner, Ron Ray

Charge Questions:

● Is the project being appropriately managed?

For this phase of the Project, yes. How interfaces to CERN and technical integration between the AUP labs was not clearly understood by the committee, leading to the conclusion that a “Project Engineer” role should be filled as soon as possible.

● Is the Integrated Project Team established and functioning?

Yes, appropriately for CD-1.

● Are the management structure and resources adequate to produce a credible technical, cost and schedule baseline?

Yes, for CD-1. The technical basis builds upon years of directly related LARP (and others) work; the cost and schedule is detailed at a level beyond CD-1 though the basis will need refinement as the project moves forward. Keeping the Project plan consistent with funding guidance is a challenge of course, but the mechanism is in place to manage this.

● Is the required DOE Order 413.3b documentation on track to be complete for CD-1?

Yes, though a thorough edit of the documents is needed to make them all ‘current’ and self consistent. The Key Assumptions document is a good practice and should be kept up to date as the project matures.

Findings

● The proposed scope of the US (AUP) contribution to HL-LHC is 5 Q1 and 5 Q3 cryo-assemblies; and 10 crab cavities in helium vessels. The Key assumptions document describes the deliveries of parts to/from CERN and the US Labs needed to complete these deliverables. Fermilab is the lead laboratory for the AUP. All of the scope is included in the integrated plan; the threshold KPPs include everything except assembly of 1 cryo-assembly and 2 of the crab cavities.

● The project is technically well advanced due to the decade+ long R&D conducted through the LARP program.

● At this review the Project presented a schedule which does not meet the FY18 PBR funding guidance (by ~10%). A revised project plan is being prepared for the DOE/OPA review in August.


Page 20 of 30


● The project has been directed to create a plan which delivers components to CERN 6 months ahead of the current CERN need date in 2024. The proposed CD-4 report date was shown in 2028, with about 4 years of float to the presented schedule (1 for spares construction, 2 for schedule risk, 1 top down float).

● The initial presentation of the HL-LHC project as a whole did not include a description of the critical path for the overall HL-LHC project.

● The US contribution was described as being critical to avoid a 2 year delay in the overall HL-LHC inner triplet production schedule (CERN is producing the Q2A and Q2B).

● The US is proposing a CD-3A package of Nb3Sn conductor to be executed in early FY18. CERN already has a contract in place for about 50% of the needed Nb3Sn conductor, and the US order with the same specification will likely go to the same manufacturer.

● Though relatively small (in some ways) in the overall scope of the CERN HL-LHC effort, the US contributions in 2 of the HL-LHC work packages have direct interfaces with 5 other work packages and less direct interfaces with another 4 work packages (out of 17 work packages total).

● A bottoms up cost and schedule was presented. In many places, the bottoms up estimate was derived from recent related experience on LARP (for the magnets in particular).

● The US laboratory effort on magnets is more integrated across institutions than it was in the US-LHC Accelerator Project. In that project each lab had responsibility for discrete items as deliverable (BNL for certain cryostated dipoles for instance; LBNL for absorbers and feed boxes; Fermilab for cryostated triplet quadrupoles (with magnets from both KEK and FNAL)). In the AUP the level of integration across US labs is at the next level down, with BNL/LBNL/FNAL each contributing effort to complete components which are then passed on to the next laboratory for further work.

● All documents required for CD-1 are at an advanced draft state (at least) and should be ready for the CD-1 review.

● An integrated project schedule has been developed in primavera with input from all CAMs and institution, a lot of effort is captured as LOE, but will be discretized before CD-2.

Comments

● A highly capable and well established technical and management team is in place that has successfully worked together for several years on the LARP program. The project has a solid foundation of technical documentation and project data to support proceeding to CD-1 and beyond. This collaboration has been a success, and should not be downplayed in the presentations.

● The complexity of managing the interfaces to the other work packages, and the interfaces within the US Labs as well as CERN, should not be underestimated. We consider appointing a full time project


Page 21 of 30


engineer an important step for creating a successful framework for managing those interfaces and the project integration.

● The project appears to have been relatively conservative in the development of the CD-1 project plan with respect to costs, schedule, and risks. Should less conservative assumptions be used, risks could be added to the risk registry to address those more aggressive assumptions. Similarly, if the current assumptions are used, opportunities might be added to the risk registry and used in the risk analysis.

● Value engineering should be addressed in the technical presentations.

● The project verbally described having a considerable amount of ‘top down’ or ‘analogous’ type estimates which have been done, of which the high level example for the triplets was presented in the Q&A session on the 2nd day of the review. If this is available it could be quite useful to integrate such information in a white paper / and the presentations for the next review to justify the costs and schedule used by the project (even if such data were only pieces of the overall plan).

● The safety requirements from CERN, and how they affect the US deliverables and the work at the US laboratories, should be more crisply defined. In addition, though the process may be in place, the final definition of these requirements should be addressed early in the project.

● All required CD-1 documents are in place in draft form, but need to be made current and consistent. There are considerable repetition between management documents. Consider consolidating the information to reduce the probability of inconsistencies.

● The risk registry is in place, but needs to be updated and completed for the cavities. There does not seem to be a common methodology between the three partner labs of how to enter and quantify the risks. We suggest adding a risk entry of having assembly space ready in time available (off-project), and a risk associated with integration of the contributions from the different laboratories

● The case for early procurement of long lead items (CD-3a) is clear, but procurement of these items constitutes a new start. The budget situation in FY18 may delay any new starts by months or even a full year. This risk should be captured in the Risk Register and mitigation strategies should be developed to the extent possible.

● Interface documents are well advanced for CD-1, but will need attention to support the proposed CD-2 date.

Comments regarding presentations

● AUP has benefited greatly by the LARP R&D program. An overview talk that clearly summarizes the LARP R&D status, the remaining technical challenges that need to be addressed in the HL-LHC project would be helpful to state the technical readiness of the team. Lessons learned from LARP should be clearly presented. Maybe one or two slides on the physics case for the LHC Hi-LUMI could be added for completeness.


Page 22 of 30


● The role of Fermilab as the lead lab, and the other US laboratories and institutions, should be described more crisply at the next review. Describe how the technical teams communicate and how the systems are integrated within the US collaboration.

● The AUP deliverables, interfaces, and integration effort should be described more crisply at the next review. This includes a description of the hardware deliverable, and the interfaces to deliverables from CERN or other partners.

● Present the scope first in the technical presentations to set the context

● The assumed delivery dates of equipment to (and from) CERN could be described more crisply at the next review. CERNs readiness to deliver the equipment to the US on that schedule could be more crisply described.

● ‘You can find it in docDB’ is not a constructive answer to a question. The question is to the speaker, the speaker should answer the question and back it up with a reference to the docDB document.

● Just a note on presentations, and this takes practice over time, but speakers should work to speak to the audience and not read a wall of text directly from the slides.

● Consider providing thumb drives with all review presentations and data to the reviewers

● Name or number the presentation files consistently and in a way that obviously links the file to the agenda

● WBS numbers are used liberally in the presentations. It may be useful to include the L2 manager names as well as or in place of the numbers, which may not be meaningful to the reviewers

● Consider creating a staff biography document instead of the “About Me” slides

Recommendations

15. Fill the Project Engineer function by October 2017.

16. Reach agreement on the pressure vessel safety requirements from both CERN and Fermilab and document how the requirements are implemented in the AUP prototype cryostat before procurement begins.

17. Proceed with the CD-3a procurement of Nb3Sn conductor after CD-3a approval.

18. Proceed to the CD-1 after finalizing documents and after making a project plan to meet the recent funding profile.


Page 23 of 30


5.0 Appendices A. Charge

B. Agenda

C. Review Committee Contact List and Writing Assignments


Page 24 of 30


Appendix A Charge



Page 25 of 30


Appendix B Agenda



Page 26 of 30



Page 27 of 30



Page 28 of 30



Page 29 of 30


Appendix C Review Committee Contact List and Writing Assignments


Chair

Ron Ray, FNAL 630-840-8090 [email protected]

Management Jim Kerby, ANL* 630-252-5264 Daniela Leitner, LBNL 510-486-4503 [email protected] Cost & Schedule David Leeb, FNAL* 630-840-4278 [email protected] Luisella Lari, FNAL 630-840-6929 [email protected] Adam Helander, FNAL 630-840-5265 [email protected] ESH&Q Dave Mertz, FNAL* 630-840-6322 [email protected] Dave Rodgers, LBNL 510-486-7675 [email protected] Magnets George Biallas, TJNAF* 757-269-7535 [email protected] Herman ten Kate, CERN +41-22-76-71187 [email protected] Bill Soyars, FNAL 630-840-3362 [email protected] Akira Yamamoto, KEK +41-22-766-2671 [email protected] Crab Cavities Mark Champion, ORNL* 856-241-2426 [email protected] Mike Kelly, ANL 630-252-4039 [email protected] *Lead

Observers Jerry Kao, DOE FSO [email protected]


Page 30 of 30

Documents

C l o s e o u t P r e s e n t a t i o n D i r e c t o r ’ s C D - 1 / 3 a ... - … · 2017. 11. 30. · Closeout Presentation 2 . 0 I n t r o d u c t i o n A Director’s CD -1/3a