Engineering Overview Nadine Kurita Organization Engineering Processes Standards

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 Designer 2 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 Designer 1 TBD Starts 2009 Diagnostics WBS 1. 5 N. Kurita System Manager D. Arnett Mechanical Engineer 1 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 26 th 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 ü Incorporate SLAC mechanical design standards ü Developed standard engineering notes ü Developed Solid Edge Tool (3 D 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 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 3 D-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-391 -000 -02 R 0 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 CD 2 a 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 SPEAR 3 – 2004 Secretary's Excellence in Acquisition Award GLAST LCLS 60% CAMS participated in PEP-II, SPEAR 3, 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 CD 4 a and CD 4 b Diffractometer PRD reviewed and approved by team leaders in May ’ 07 – CRITICAL PATH ITEM for CD 4 -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 CD 4 a and CD 4 b Met with team leaders to discuss sample chamber requirements in May 2007 Developed multiple sample chamber approaches. CRITICAL PATH ITEM FOR CD 4 a 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 completed Preliminary design near completion Preliminary Design Review in October 2007 ahead of schedule LUSI DOE Review July 23, 2007 Engineering Overview 25 Document 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 Nov ’ 07 Dec ’ 07 LUSI DOE Review July 23, 2007 Engineering Overview 29 CD 1 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 CD 2 a Nadine Kurita kurita@slac. stanford. edu

Major Milestones (2) Jan ’ 08 Jan’ 07 Jan ’ 07 Feb ’ 08 Mar ’ 08 Apr ’ 08 May ’ 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 CD 3 a Nadine Kurita kurita@slac. stanford. edu

Major Milestones (3) Jul ’ 08 Jan ’ 09 Apr ’ 09 Sep ’ 09 Oct ’ 09 Nov ’ 09 Feb ’ 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 CD 4 a components received All major CD 4 a components ready for installation CD 4 a installation complete XPP Detector installed CD 2 b Particle Injector received CD 4 a CD 3 b CD 4 b 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 CD 4 a 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