1 / 36

HL-LHC Accelerator Upgrade Project (AUP) - Overview

HL-LHC Accelerator Upgrade Project (AUP) - Overview. Giorgio Apollinari – FNAL HL-LHC AUP Project Manager. HL-LHC AUP CD-2/3b DOE IPR – December 11 th –13 th ; 2018. Outline. Project Overview Scope Definition & Schedule Requirements Management and Organization

manning
Download Presentation

HL-LHC Accelerator Upgrade Project (AUP) - Overview

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. HL-LHC Accelerator Upgrade Project (AUP) - Overview Giorgio Apollinari – FNAL HL-LHC AUP Project Manager HL-LHC AUP CD-2/3b DOE IPR – December 11th–13th; 2018

  2. Outline • Project Overview • Scope Definition & Schedule Requirements • Management and Organization • Funding Profile, Cost & Schedule Estimates • Project Risks & Risks Analysis • Labor Resources • Earned Value Management System • CD-2/3b Requirements • Summary HL-LHC AUP CD-2/3b DOE/SC Review – Dec 2018

  3. HL-LHC AUP Scope - Introduction • HL-LHC AUP is a 413.3b Project established to fulfill a US contribution to HL-LHC • P5 Recommendation: Complete the LHC Phase-1 upgrades and continue the strong collaboration in the LHC with the phase-2 (HL-LHC) upgrades of the accelerator (this Project) and both general-purpose experiments (ATLAS and CMS). The LHC upgrade constitute our highest-priority near-term large project. • May 2015: CERN-DOE Co-operation Agreement Concerning Scientific and Technical Co-operation in Nuclear and Particle Physics • December 2015: CERN-DOE Accelerator Protocol III on LHC LHC accelerator consolidation plan and the LHC upgrade program • May 2017: CERN-DOE Addendum II to Accelerator Protocol III establishing a framework on participation by DOE and US Participating Organizations in HL-LHC US-HiLumi-doc-458 US-HiLumi-doc-461 HL-LHC AUP CD-2/3b DOE/SC Review – Dec 2018

  4. HL-LHC AUP Scope in HL-LHC Context HL-LHC AUP • LARP (LHC Accelerator Research Program), funded by DOE since ~2003, has established the necessary technology for the HL-LHC Focusing Magnets and Crab Cavities. From HL-LHC Project Leader L. Rossi - CERN HL-LHC AUP CD-2/3b DOE/SC Review – Dec 2018

  5. HL-LHC AUP Scope – Introduction (cont.) • Mission Need (CD-0 on Mar. ‘16) based on P5 recommendation to : • Selection of Alternatives, Cost and Schedule Range & Preliminary Scope Baseline (CD-1 on Oct ‘17) From CD-0 “Mission Need” approval US-HiLumi-doc-82 … From “CD-1/3a ESAAB Approval“ approval US-HiLumi-doc-1181 HL-LHC AUP CD-2/3b DOE/SC Review – Dec 2018

  6. HL-LHC AUP Scope – Technical Details MQXFA Magnet 302.2 • Q1/Q3 Cryoassembly • Dressed RFD Cavity Cold Mass Assembly 302.4 Cryo-Assembly V-HOM RF Pickup 302.3 H-HOM HL-LHC AUP CD-2/3b DOE/SC Review – Dec 2018

  7. Charge 1 HL-LHC AUP Scope as Key Performance Parameters • HL-LHC AUP Project include Objective KPPs • The difference between Threshold and Objective KPPs represents scope contingency that provides technical, schedule, and cost margin for a successful completion of the Project. 10 Q1/Q3 Cryoassemblies 10 RFD Dressed Cavities From PEP: Us-HiLumi-doc-1341 HL-LHC AUP CD-2/3b DOE/SC Review – Dec 2018

  8. Charge 1 Performance Requirements • Performance Requirements are documented in “Functional Requirements Specifications” documents • Approved by CERN • Accepted by AUP • Under Document Control • Extensively described in Break-out Sessions Us-HiLumi-doc-36 Us-HiLumi-doc-64 Us-HiLumi-doc-294 HL-LHC AUP CD-2/3b DOE/SC Review – Dec 2018

  9. Charge 1 HL-LHC AUP Project Completion • AUP is complete when 10 Q1/Q3 Cryoassemblies and 10 RFD Dressed Cavities are delivered to CERN and have undergone inspection to exclude shipment damage. • Acceptance of US deliverables is agreed upon before shipment from the US to CERN – more in the next slide • Shipment solution will rely on lessons learned from LCLS-II experience. • AUP does not contain any activity of Installation or Commissioning at the HL-LHC. HL-LHC AUP CD-2/3b DOE/SC Review – Dec 2018

  10. Acceptance of US Deliverables • Acceptance Plan (AUP document) describes process to assess readiness to ship and obtain CERN OK for shipment • Acceptance Criteria (CERN approved, AUP accepted) is a critical part of the Acceptance Plan and defines methods and procedures for verification of each requirement in the FRS • Part A: Magnet Acceptance Criteria DRAFT (US-HiLumi-doc-1103) • Part B: Cold Mass Acceptance Criteria DRAFT (US-HiLumi-doc-1127) • Part C: Reception of CA at CERN DRAFT (US-HiLumi-doc-1145) • “Q1/Q3 CryoAssembly Acceptance Plan” • Us-HiLumi-doc-1148 • “RFD Dressed Cavities Acceptance Plan” • US-HiLumi-doc-1744 HL-LHC AUP CD-2/3b DOE/SC Review – Dec 2018

  11. Agreement with CERN on Delivery Dates • AUP is “Schedule driven” by the CERN Long Shutdown 3 (LS3) Schedule and other schedule constraints • The AUP deliverables need to be at CERN well in advance of the HL-LHC operations to allow for installations and commissioning of the equipment. • AUP-CERN started negotiated and agreed upon on “Early Delivery” and “Late Delivery” dates. Q1/Q3 CryoAssemblies from Us-HiLumi-doc-1175: “AUP-CERN Agreement CERN Response to US Deliverables and Delivery Dates” HL-LHC AUP CD-2/3b DOE/SC Review – Dec 2018

  12. Charge 4 HL-LHC AUP Project Organization HL-LHC AUP CD-2/3b DOE/SC Review – Dec 2018

  13. Charge 4 Partner Labs & Project Collaborators • HL-LHC AUP activities funded by DOE will take place at: • Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory • Brookhaven National Laboratory • Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory • Technical efforts at BNL, FNAL and LBL are almost evenly split among the Laboratories on touch-labor magnet effort • WFO/Contractual activities will happen with other US Institutions such as: • Old Dominion University • Florida National High Field Magnet Laboratory • Argonne National Laboratory • Jefferson Laboratory • Stanford Linear Accelerator Laboratory • Collaborators for HL-LHC AUP include • CERN and other Organizations as indicated by CERN HL-LHC AUP CD-2/3b DOE/SC Review – Dec 2018

  14. Charge 4 Management and Organization • L2 Managers & Deputies • Project Management: • G. Apollinari • R. Carcagno • MQXFA Magnets: • G. Ambrosio • M. Baldini • Q1/Q3 CryoAssemblies: • S. Feher • H. Glass • RFD Dressed Cavities: • L. Ristori • P. Berrutti HL-LHC AUP CD-2/3b DOE/SC Review – Dec 2018

  15. Charge 4 HL-LHC AUP Project Office • Giorgio Apollinari PM • Ruben Carcagno Deputy PM • Tom Page System Integration Engineer • Lorri Stapleton Lead Project Controls • Marilyn Wodzinski Project Controls • Alyssa Payleitner Project Controls • Ali Hemmati Risk Manager • Jamie Blowers QA Manager • Amy Pavnica ES&H Coordinator • Chris Rossman Procurement Liaison • Connie Trimby Financial Manager HL-LHC AUP CD-2/3b DOE/SC Review – Dec 2018

  16. Charge 2 AUP Funding Profile • Funding Profile guidance supports: • Planned KPPs (including Objective KPPs) • CryoAssemblies and RFD cavities delivered to CERN by “Early Delivery” date to be installed in HL-LHC. Communication from DOE HEP-HQ HL-LHC AUP CD-2/3b DOE/SC Review – Dec 2018

  17. Charge 2 HL-LHC AUP Total Project Cost Cost Estimate by WBS ($ in Millions)by WBS From PEP: Us-HiLumi-doc-1341 • Total Contingency: 53.2 M$ • FNAL practice is to aim at 90% C.L. on Risk Contingency and availability of U.U. Contingency • Higher TPC needed to achieve 90% C.L. & UU, more in 302.1 Management talk • Contingency on work remaining: 32.3% HL-LHC AUP CD-2/3b DOE/SC Review – Dec 2018

  18. Charge 2 HL-LHC AUP - Q1/Q3 Cryo-Assemblies Integrated Schedule Tailoring Strategy HL-LHC AUP CD-2/3b DOE/SC Review – Dec 2018

  19. Charge 2 HL-LHC AUP - RFD Dressed Crab Cavities Integrated Schedule HL-LHC AUP CD-2/3b DOE/SC Review – Dec 2018

  20. Charge 2 HL-LHC AUP - Resources Type Breakdown Materials and Supplies (M&S) are very well identified. Quotes and low-quantity purchase orders are available for all Major procurements. HL-LHC AUP CD-2/3b DOE/SC Review – Dec 2018

  21. Charge 2 HL-LHC AUP – Estimate Quality HL-LHC AUP CD-2/3b DOE/SC Review – Dec 2018

  22. Charge 2 Labor resources • From 10/1/18 forward, total of 366 FTEs. Falls-off of Cable, Coils and Cavities Fabrication HL-LHC AUP CD-2/3b DOE/SC Review – Dec 2018

  23. Charge 2 & 5 Obligation and Funding Profile HL-LHC AUP CD-2/3b DOE/SC Review – Dec 2018

  24. Charge 5 EVMS • 15 Control Accounts (CA) and 12 Control Account Managers (CAMs) • All CAMs have received EVMS training • Have been “statusing” the P6 schedule since Jan. ’18 and performed VAR reporting since internal frozen baseline on Apr. ‘18 • Cost and Schedule trued up to actuals through March 2018. • Cost Performance Reports generated for September 2018 (@DOE Review). HL-LHC AUP CD-2/3b DOE/SC Review – Dec 2018

  25. Charge 5 HL-LHC AUP Cost Performance Report • BAC = $179.283M • Cumulative SPI = 0.91, CPI = 1.01 HL-LHC AUP CD-2/3b DOE/SC Review – Dec 2018

  26. Charge 3 Project Risks • AUP has identified risks to the Project and developed a Risk Registry for their management. • US-HiLumi-doc-339 for the Risk Management Plan and US-HiLumi-doc-79 for the Risk Register • A total of 93 risks (threats and opportunities) have been identified and are actively managed. • 8 risks since CD-1 have been retired/managed • Risks classified according to their impact and used for Risk Contingency determination. • More in the L2 talk on “302.1 Project Management” and break-out Risk Manager presentation HL-LHC AUP CD-2/3b DOE/SC Review – Dec 2018

  27. Charge 3 Design Reviews • Preliminary and Final Design Reviews executed by independent external teams: • MQXFA Design Criteria Review • FNAL, Apr. 23rd -24th, 2018 (US-HiLumi-doc-1247) • MQXFA Final Design Review and Q1/Q3 Cold Mass and CryoAssembly Preliminary Design review • FNAL, May 21st – 22nd, 2018 with follow-up on July 10th 2018 (US-HiLumi-doc-1187) • RFD Dressed Cavities Preliminary Design review and Nb Raw Material Final Design review • FNAL, Jun 20th-21st, 2018 (US-HiLumi-doc-1190) • Charges to Review teams included requests to assess Risks, Production plans, Procurement plans, etc. • Presented and discussed in Break-out sessions HL-LHC AUP CD-2/3b DOE/SC Review – Dec 2018

  28. CD Tailoring Strategy • Project readiness supported by: • several years of R&D in LARP (Short Models and Mirror Magnet & CC Proof-of-Principle) • assembly of Magnet Prototypes (P1, P2) supported by tail-end of LARP • Magnets • Short Model & Mirror Coil Programs successful • Prototypes Program • P1 performed to 97.4% of Current Acceptance level before unrelated “hiccup” due to insulation/wrong testing procedure • P2 showed good magnetic performance (field quality) but under-performed at high current • Identified weakness with LARP-fabrication of structure used for P2, still under investigation • Cables and Coils design is sound and solid • Final Magnet assembly needs to be validated in conforming pre-series magnets HL-LHC AUP CD-2/3b DOE/SC Review – Dec 2018

  29. CD Tailoring Strategy (cont.) This Review Fabrication of Magnet Components to meet Early Delivery Date to CERN Balance of Strand Efforts (QC) - 302.2.02 Production of Cables – 302.2.03 Procurement of Coil parts – 302.2.04 Procurement of ARMCO Grade 4 Iron – in 302.2.07 Assembly of Coils for Magnets #8 to #11 – in 302.2.05 & 302.2.06 Procurement of Magnet Structure for Magnets #8 to #14 – in 302.2.07 LLI Raw Materials for Crab Cavities – in 302.3.02 HL-LHC AUP CD-2/3b DOE/SC Review – Dec 2018

  30. Charge 1 Compliance & Integration with CERN • Magnet cryo-assemblies and RFD crab cavities must meet the CERN requirement of being compliant to the Essential Safety Requirements of the European Pressure Equipment Directive (PED). • In addition, both assemblies must be compliant with the FNAL ES&H Manual in order to be tested at FNAL. • US-HiLumi-doc-850: Compliance with PED on CryoAssemblies • HL-LHC AUP approach to approval/completion status described in US-HiLumi-doc-1738: • CD-2 Scope (Preliminary Design): • FRS approved by CERN and accepted by AUP • Materials List in draft form within AUP • Acceptance Criteria in draft form within AUP • Interfaces Identification completed within AUP • Before fabrication start of any potentially deliverable element: • Materials List & Specifications approved by CERN and accepted by AUP • MIP/MTF approved by CERN and accepted by AUP • Acceptance Criteria approved by CERN and accepted by AUP • Interfaces fully documented and approved Draft = Collaborative document with full interaction with appropriate CERN WP HL-LHC AUP CD-2/3b DOE/SC Review – Dec 2018

  31. Charge 8 Status of Recommendations • All previous reviews recommendations tracked in US-HiLumi-doc-1322

  32. Charge 6 DOE 413.3b Documentation • Required for CD-2/3b (From DOE O 413.3B): HL-LHC AUP CD-2/3b DOE/SC Review – Dec 2018

  33. Charge7 & 1 ESH&Q • FNAL, LBNL and BNL firmly committed to safety and quality • Safety integrated into Labs Management at all levels. • Project embedded in Lab’s line management • Oversight by Lab ES&H organization • Project ES&H Coordinator – Amy Pavnica • Integrated Safety Management plan developed (US-HiLumi-Doc-201) • Hazard Analysis Report (US-HiLumi-Doc-1121) including evaluation and mitigation of safety risks developed in integrated form across FNAL, BNL and LBNL • Security and Vulnerability Assessment (US-HiLumi-Doc-1163) • NEPA approval obtained in 2016 • Project Quality Manager – Jamie Blowers • Quality Assurance Program developed (US-HiLumi-Doc-201) • Custom QA/QC plan flow-downs and is tailored to each L2 according to DOE Lab’s requirements and CERN requirements • To be discussed in L2/L3 subsystems • Extensive QA plan developed for all elements of HL-LHC AUP scope.

  34. Summary/Charge Questions for CD-2/3b • Charge 1: Does the proposed technical design satisfy the performance requirements ? Do the key performance parameters provide a satisfactory indication of the project’s completeness ? • All L2 (Plenary) and L3 (Magnets, Q1/Q3 Cryoassembly and RFD Cavities in Breakout Sessions) presentations. • Charge 2: Is the resource-loaded schedule complete, consistent and credible so that it can serve as a cost and schedule part of the project’s performance baseline ? Is the RLS compatible with the funding guidance provided by HEP ? Have the project’s risks been fully analyzed and accounted for in the contingency estimate ? • This Presentation, L2 Management and Management Breakout Session • Charge 3: In regard to the magnet fabrication, have the final designs been appropriately reviewed by the project and are the designs ready to support fabrication? Was an independent final design review conducted? Has the risk analysis been kept up-to-date and are risks being handle properly? • L2 (Plenary) and L3 (MQXFA Magnets Breakout Session) • Risks described by all L2 and L3. PRA described in Management Breakout Magnet Components Prod. HL-LHC AUP CD-2/3b DOE/SC Review – Dec 2018

  35. Summary/Charge Questions for CD-2 • Charge 4: Is the project properly staffed with individuals that have the required skills to deliver the proposed technical scope within the baseline budget and schedule ? • Project Office staff presented here. Management Breakout Session • Charge 5: Does the project have a certified EVMS system and have they demonstrated their ability to utilize it as an effective project management tool ? • Management Breakout session and Drill-down Sessions • Charge 6: Is the documentation required by DOE Order 413.3B for CD-2/3b complete and in good order ? • Documentation Status shown at appropriate Breakout Session • Charge 7: Are ES&H aspects being properly addressed given the project’s current stage of development ? • Safety Coordinator at Breakout Session • Charge 8: Has the project responded satisfactorily to the recommendations from the previous independent project review ? • L1/L2 Managers at Breakout Sessions HL-LHC AUP CD-2/3b DOE/SC Review – Dec 2018

  36. Summary • AUP design is ready and mature for CD-2 • AUP Scope, Cost and Schedule developed and under EVMS control. • Contingency at 32.3% level includes Risk Contingency @ ~80% C.L. • TPC guidance increase of ~10M$ will reduce the risk of insufficient contingency • Tailoring strategy for CD-3’s accounts for observed prototypes experience • MQXFA Magnet Components Fabrication and Crab Cavities LLI Material Procurement are ready for CD-3b HL-LHC AUP CD-2/3b DOE/SC Review – Dec 2018

More Related