LCLSII Prototype Cryomodule FDR Homework Responses J Blowers

LCLS-II Prototype Cryomodule FDR Homework Responses J. Blowers, C. M. Ginsburg, T. Peterson, R. Stanek, J. Theilacker (FNAL) 21 – 22 January 2015

Homework questions (1 -2/6) 1. Provide cost & schedule info • Camille's slide on cost/schedule from the talk was emailed to the committee. 2. Provide previous action items & responses • For EPRs, there is one spreadsheet log for all Cryogenic Systems engineering peer reviews, located in the Systems Engineering & Integration site, under Engineering Peer Reviews/Cryo. The direct link is: https: //slacspace. slac. stanford. edu/sites/lcls 2/sei/epr/Forms/All. Items. aspx? Root. Folder=%2 Fsites%2 Flcls%2 D 2%2 Fsei%2 Fepr%2 FCryo&Folde r. CTID=0 x 012000 DCF 71 DA 391 CEE 84087 DA 49 AC 89 B 6 E 986&View={76 FBD 827 -9 D 48 -49 AD-A 9322586 BD 2 EC 654}&Initial. Tab. Id=Ribbon%2 ERead&Visibility. Context=WSSTab. Persistence - • • Currently posted EPR action tracking spreadsheet was emailed to the committee. For PDR and FDR, SLAC staff maintain a spreadsheet for each review, generally on the review documentation web site. For Fermilab reviews, the reviewer reports are posted on the relevant indico sites (cited in Camille’s talk) LCLS-II Prototype Cryomodule FDR, 21 - 22 January 2015 2

Homework questions (3/5) 3. Present a ranked list of risks associated with prototype CM production and future installation at SLAC. LCLS-II Prototype Cryomodule FDR, 21 - 22 January 2015 3

FNAL Prototype Cryomodule High Level Risks • FNAL has two ongoing SRF based efforts => LCLS II and PIP II (R&D stage) and these could collide • Both efforts draw from same trained SRF staff and use the same SRF facilities Mitigation: • LCLS II has Fermilab’s highest priority • Effort underway to create facility redundancy where needed and to add SRF staff to minimize shared resource influences • Loss of any of the key personnel would hurt • TD adding experienced SRF people => starting to develop additional backup Continuous monitoring and interaction with Lab management LCLS-II Prototype Cryomodule FDR, 21 - 22 January 2015 4

FNAL Prototype Cryomodule Risks (Stanek’s view) • FNAL will succeed in completing the design and fabrication of p. CM • Fermilab’s SRF staff are talented and motivated • Understand what is important in the design and how to execute procurements • Very good collaboration with JLab • Success of CM-1 and CM-2 gives confidence • Prototypes cost more & take longer reflected in estimates for the work (P 6) • Performance cannot be guaranteed that is why we build prototypes - To build up confidence in our design and the components - To exercise the procedures and train the staff need to have both in place • Technical Risks for p. CM include: • unknown-unknowns Do we have all of the requirements uncovered? • lower cavity performance in CM versus HTS field emission, spurious low quench… • infant mortality of new components even with extended Design Verification tests • microphonics behavior in CM difficult to simulate until p. CM assembled/tested/installed LCLS-II Prototype Cryomodule FDR, 21 - 22 January 2015 5

Homework questions (4/6) 4. Show us the PRD availability requirements for the CM/srf linac and describe how the existing design meets those requirements. Availability in cryomodule PRD: LCLSII-4. 1 -PR-0146 -R 0 The LCLS-II should be able to deliver X-rays 95% of the scheduled user time. This imposes tight constraints on the performance of the SCRF linac. As noted in the Linac Requirements PRD, the SCRF linac has 6% spare cavities in case of RF system failure or a failure of the cavity components. This should ease some of the availability challenge. There are only a few cavities that are absolutely critical for operation such as the 1 st few cavities in the Injector cryomodule CM 01. Details of the availability requirements are described in the LCLS-II Availability PRD. LCLS-II availability PRD is here: LCLSII-1. 1 -PR-0163 -R 0 SCRF Linac 99. 87% (availability goal) 89. 8% (start-up availability) Super Conductive RF cryomodule, Cavities, cavity tuners, RF input coupler, cryomodule vacuum. SCRF Linac 6. 1 hours (95% availability) Out of a 4500 hour user run LCLS-II Prototype Cryomodule FDR, 21 - 22 January 2015 9. 0 hours (89. 91% availability) 6

Homework questions (5/6) 5. Provide a list of documents that are necessary for the FDR and comment on their completeness. LCLS-II Prototype Cryomodule FDR, 21 - 22 January 2015 7

LCLS-II Prototype Cryomodule FDR, 21 - 22 January 2015 8

Homework questions (6/6) 6. Provide a brief summary of the component supply chain/QC strategy for the p. CM. LCLS-II Prototype Cryomodule FDR, 21 - 22 January 2015 9

"Homework" Question and “Big Picture” Answer "Provide a brief summary of the component supply chain/QC strategy for the p. CM" “Big Picture” answer: • Fermilab is meeting the requirements as defined in the SLAC LCLS-II QA Plan, and is working within the framework of the Fermilab Integrated Quality Assurance program • The work for the p. CM is being done within the framework of the Technical Division Quality Management Program • Mike Skonicki gave us passing marks from his December assessment LCLS-II Prototype Cryomodule FDR, 21 - 22 January 2015 10

The More Detailed Answer • All component work, both in-house and with suppliers, is being planned and QC steps are incorporated • The normal supplier oversight is applied: • Purchase from reputable suppliers • When appropriate, bids are evaluated and quality (assuring and controlling) is a critical component • Between the Lab Procurement staff, the TD Acquisition staff, and the technical staff (SOTRs), we monitor progress of suppliers • We request QC/fabrication reports with fabrications, and perform incoming QC on all items LCLS-II Prototype Cryomodule FDR, 21 - 22 January 2015 11

The More Detailed Answer • For CM parts we are adopting the use of “QC prints” to define, internally, the incoming QC plan • The goal is to have the QC prints ready by the time the order is placed • We also complete an “Acceptance Criteria Listing” for each procurement, as per the SLAC LCLS-II QA Plan • Serialized components are inspected according to a traveler • All discrepancies are recorded and tracked to closure LCLS-II Prototype Cryomodule FDR, 21 - 22 January 2015 12

Incoming Inspection Example LCLS-II Prototype Cryomodule FDR, 21 - 22 January 2015 13

Incoming Inspection Example • Helium vessel leak check traveler: https: //vector-offsite. fnal. gov/Vector. Hard. Copy/16037. asp • Helium vessel CMM inspection traveler: https: //vector-offsite. fnal. gov/Vector. Hard. Copy/16034. asp • Acceptance Criteria Strategy list: http: //tdserver 1. fnal. gov/blowers/Projects/LCLS_II/FNAL_stuff/ACS_list. xlsx LCLS-II Prototype Cryomodule FDR, 21 - 22 January 2015 14

Examples of supply chain/QC Example 1: niobium procurement (EPR April 4, 2014) – most complex https: //indico. fnal. gov/conference. Display. py? conf. Id=8385 (Ginsburg presentation) • The Nb and Nb/Ti requirements are exactly the XFEL specs; QC will compare as-received with specs, both in material properties and mechanical properties • For the niobium sheet, we use exactly the XFEL QC model, with DESY performing the QC • For the niobium non-sheet and the Nb. Ti parts, we split the QC function FNAL/JLab (respectively). • The effort estimation at the labs was made by QC staff. LCLS-II Prototype Cryomodule FDR, 21 - 22 January 2015 15

Examples of supply chain/QC Example 2: GHRP and vacuum vessel review (FDR) https: //indico. fnal. gov/conference. Display. py? conf. Id=9151 (Premo talk) Medium complexity LCLS-II Prototype Cryomodule FDR, 21 - 22 January 2015 16