LCLSII Prototype Cryomodule Magnet Project Management Camille M

LCLS-II Prototype Cryomodule Magnet Project Management Camille M Ginsburg (FNAL) Cryomodule Magnet Final Design Review April 16, 2015

Outline: Project Management Context for Magnet Introduction to magnet design team Committee charge for the review Cryomodule high-level plan, focusing on magnet Reviews Conclusions Magnet FDR - 16. Apr. 2015 - Ginsburg 2

Magnet Design Team Vladimir Kashikhin (magnet lead) Nikolai Andreev (mechanical design engineer) Sergei Cheban (thermal analysis) Joe Dimarco (magnet tests) Alexander Makarov (magnet engineering) Yuriy Orlov (magnet CM integration) Darryl Orris and Fred Lewis (instrumentation) Valeri Poloubotko (current leads engineering) The LCLS-II magnet and its design predecessors have been tested and developed over the last several years at Fermilab/KEK by many people, including Nobohiro Kimura (engineering), Hirotaka Nakai (engineering), Mike Tartaglia (testing), Tom Wokas (assembly) Akira Yamamoto (design) Tom Peterson (Cryomodule design lead engineer) Nikolay Solyak (Design verification lead) CMG (Cryomodule CAM) Rich Stanek (Senior Team Lead) Magnet FDR - 16. Apr. 2015 - Ginsburg 3

CM Magnet FDR Committee Charge (Ross/Hays) Evaluate design readiness of the LCLS-II 1. 3 GHz Cryomodule Quadrupole Magnet for approval of design implementation, procurement, fabrication and installation activities. Technical Scope • • • Are designs mature and technically sound to satisfy design specifications? Is the design likely to meet performance expectations, including magnetic and thermal performance Have installation issues been adequately addressed, including - • • Assembly procedure Degaussing procedure if necessary Alignment and fiducialization? Have all the major interfaces been identified and incorporated into the design? Are all design specifications, requirements, performance, and interface documents reviewed, approved and released? Design Management • • Is the design team organized and staffed to successfully complete the project? Have all of the major risks been identified and managed? Are procurements appropriately planned? Is the development of associated drawing packages sufficiently mature? Cost and Schedule • Is the cost and schedule reasonable to achieve the planned scope? ES&H • Are all related ES&H aspects being properly addressed? Miscellaneous • • Have all the previous design review action items/comments been addressed? Are there any other issues that have been identified that need to be addressed? Overall Readiness: Is the design sufficiently mature so as to allow FDR approval (~90 -100% Design Maturity)? Magnet FDR - 16. Apr. 2015 - Ginsburg 4

LCLS-II cryomodule production model • 1. 3 GHz cryomodules (35) • Produce two streams of identical 1. 3 GHz production CM at FNAL&JLab - Tightly coordinated activity among partner labs - Common procedures, common test performance database, common - travelers, etc. (within infrastructure limits) Split procurements between the two labs • Assemble two prototypes in advance of 33 production cryomodules • Test >50% of cryomodules prior to delivery to SLAC, including prototypes • 3. 9 GHz cryomodules (2) • Designed, produced and tested at FNAL, following 1. 3 GHz for efficiency • All cavities and cryomodules go in the linac • 1 st two 1. 3 GHz cryomodules (prototypes) work to specification • No spare cavities or CM’s Magnet FDR - 16. Apr. 2015 - Ginsburg 5

LCLS-II 1. 3 GHz cryomodule procurement model • Procurements distributed JLab/FNAL • Deliveries split between JLab/FNAL • Documented LCLSII-4. 1 -PM-229 -R 0 6/12/2014 NB: 3. 9 GHz procurements @FNAL Magnet FDR - 16. Apr. 2015 - Ginsburg 6

LCLS-II prototype 1. 3 GHz cryomodules • Purpose of prototypes • • Test out the design modifications as soon as possible Prove out the JLab infrastructure modifications Develop procedures and travelers, train staff, etc. Prototype CM’s will go in the beamline and must perform to specification • Build two prototype cryomodules, one each at FNAL and JLab • Use 16 existing FNAL ILC 9 -cell short-short cavities (beam tube lengths) • Adapt XFEL-style end-lever tuner - Fit short-short cavities Permit access through ports, to mitigate risk of using new design Satisfy requirements of LCLS-II operation • Design new He vessel to accommodate end-lever tuner and larger heat load • Titanium to SS transition on chimney and fill lines • Magnet is same design between proto/prod CM Magnet FDR - 16. Apr. 2015 - Ginsburg 7

LCLS-II 1. 3 GHz cryomodule schedule – where magnet fits • A full P 6 schedule has been developed • CD milestones, facility throughput, lead time on procurements • Details of design verification studies and cavity test/prep for prototype cryomodules were recently added • Design verification studies continue through June 2015 • Prototype CM – current (baseline) P 6 status • Begin FNAL assembly July 2015 [magnet needed at WS 3 Oct 2015] o Driven by dressed cavities & couplers • FNAL prototype cryomodule testing Jan-Jun 2016 • Production CM – current (baseline) P 6 status • Begin FNAL assembly April 2016 [magnet needed Jun 2016] Magnet FDR - 16. Apr. 2015 - Ginsburg 8

LCLS-II Magnet-Related Reviews • Prototype 1. 3 GHz cryomodule 20 -21. Jan. 2015 – Final Design • Also served as a magnet preliminary design review • https: //indico. fnal. gov/conference. Display. py? conf. Id=9245 • 1. 3 GHz Production CM Final Design Review Apr 2015 • Magnet FDR today (among other items) is input info for this review • NB: Operation in the prototype cryomodule will not be fully confirmed until Jan-Jun 2016 Magnet FDR - 16. Apr. 2015 - Ginsburg 9

LCLS-II Magnet-Specific Review Recommendations Operation of the magnet package has been demonstrated in a LHe dunk dewar, but the conduction cooling strategy can only be verified by an actual test of the final geometry using real thermal links. This test should be given priority. -The task was updated to include testing the magnet prototype in the conduction cooling mode. During the test will be used conduction cooled current leads having the cooling as close as possible to the Cryomodule prototype. For that task the test is organized by using Spoke Test Cryostat (STC) cryostat in the Meson building. The design for STC of magnet supports, cooling thermal links, current leads, and instrumentation is finished, and parts are ordered. The test preparations will be in Apr-May 2015, and cold tests in May-June 2015. The detailed engineering specification document (ESD) should include a detailed specification of requirement interlocking for each device that requires equipment protection. This should include but not be limited to: magnet control specifications, quench protection specification, motion control interlocking specifications, thermal limits etc. These specifications are essential to insure the hardware is properly protected and the associated controls can be provided by each lab before testing commences. -Interface control documents, cryomodule ESD documents includes all the information and they are currently being worked on. Magnet FDR - 16. Apr. 2015 - Ginsburg 10

Magnet-specific Risks (in Risk Registry) • None Magnet FDR - 16. Apr. 2015 - Ginsburg 11

Conclusions: LCLS-II 1. 3 GHz CM magnet • The LCLS-II FNAL magnet team has developed a new/modified design suitable for the LCLS-II 1. 3 GHz cryomodule • Meeting LCLS-II performance requirements • Substantial benefits with respect to assembly outside cleanroom • A full schedule and plan have been developed, based on previous experience, taking into account the aggressive project schedule requirements, and necessary testing • Passing the review, possibly with action items to be completed, triggers approval of design implementation, procurement, fabrication and installation activities. • Significant test activities will continue past this review • Your comments and assistance will be very valuable Magnet FDR - 16. Apr. 2015 - Ginsburg 12

Backup Slides Magnet FDR - 16. Apr. 2015 - Ginsburg 13

Cryomodule Assembly Work Stations WS 2 WS 1 WS 3 WS 0 WS 5 Repair Area WS 4 Magnet FDR - 16. Apr. 2015 - Ginsburg WS 6 14