1 / 45

Norbert Holtkamp November 18, 2011

Building Large Scale Facilities Lessons Learned from SNS and ITER In-kind Contributions: A Curse or a Blessing?. Norbert Holtkamp November 18, 2011. Classical projects are build under single organizations with sole authority for Scope, Schedule and Cost.

stesha
Télécharger la présentation

Norbert Holtkamp November 18, 2011

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. Building Large Scale Facilities Lessons Learned from SNS and ITER In-kind Contributions: A Curse or a Blessing? Norbert Holtkamp November 18, 2011 ESS Seminar, Nov 2011

  2. Classical projects are build under single organizations with sole authority for Scope, Schedule and Cost. Given the scale and the cost of large science projects, in the last 20 years, more and more projects are executed with distributed teams. Some internationally. Instead of providing cash to a central team, having the sole responsibility for design, integration, procurement, installation and operation, various of these elements are given “In-Kind”. Examples are: Many High Energy Physics Detectors HERA Model (80% versus 20%) Upgrades/Diagnostics JET Spallation Neutron Source LHC Detectors Atacama Large mm Array Projects under way or planned: ITER XFEL ESS FAIR Projects based on “In-Kind” Contributions ESS Seminar, Nov 2011

  3. The Concept: Develop the idea. Do the initial layout. Convince the politicians. Leave out the details…. The Implementation: Set up the organization, finish the design, get the money (-> Baseline) Implement the baseline, improve the design details, manage the contracts, manage installation and initial operation OPERATION New team New team New team The Three Phases of a Project ESS Seminar, Nov 2011

  4. Scope – Schedule – Cost! In that order… ESS Seminar, Nov 2011

  5. My Background: DESY 1989 -1998 • The HERA model: >80% of the budget is single country and single lab. • There were many (20% / 15 countries) small contributions. No single one could diminish ultimate performance if failing. ESS Seminar, Nov 2011

  6. Linear Collider R&D Program at DESY • S-Band Technology (normal conducting) was developed and built into full scale test facility.-> industrialized today! ESS Seminar, Nov 2011

  7. FERMI Lab and the Neutrino Factory • Multi Lab Collaboration where a full scale project report was generated. • DOE decided not to pursue for cost and “technical risk” reasons. • Continued and initiated collaborations with several foreign institutes. ESS Seminar, Nov 2011

  8. HEP: Even though there is a different approach – there is a history and process that the community is used to. HEP has been slowly growing from small project to large projects “in kind” ESS Seminar, Nov 2011

  9. International Technology Review Panel …in HEP at least there is process for decision making ESS Seminar, Nov 2011

  10. The Spallation Neutron Source • The SNS is a short-pulse neutron source with a single-purpose mission of neutron science, constructed at ORNL with contributions from 6 DOE laboratories • SNS construction was funded through DOE-BES at 1.4 B$ • At the beginning of construction SNS had ~30% contingency and 465 days of explicit float in the schedule (on a 7 year construction schedule. 2000 ESS Seminar, Nov 2011

  11. The Spallation Neutron Source Partnership SNS-ORNL Accelerator systems:~167 M$ ~20 M$ ~113 M$ ~106 M$ ~177 M$ ~60 M$ At peak : ~500 People worked on the construction of the SNS accelerator– only ~200 required for Operation ~63 M$ ESS Seminar, Nov 2011

  12. Original SNS CDR for CD-1 May 1997 • 1.0 MW 1.0 GeV copper CCL linac with no room for increased energy, only current • HEBT and Ring magnets sized for 1.0 GeV H- • Orginal Design has very little to do with what was built. ESS Seminar, Nov 2011

  13. The Target building a “highly integrated” construction project… ESS Seminar, Nov 2011

  14. ITER (highlights) Fusion gain Q = 10, Fusion Power: ~500MW, Ohmic burn 300 to 500 sec Goal Q=5 for 3000 sec Central Solenoid (6) (Nb3Sn) Cryostat (29 m high x 28 m dia.) Thermal Shield (4 sub-assemblies) Toroidal Field Coils (18) (Nb3Sn) Vacuum Vessel (9 sectors) Poloidal Field Coils (6) (NbTi) In-Vessel Coils (2-VS & 27-ELM) Correction Coils (18) (NbTi) Blanket (440 modules) Divertor (54 cassettes) Feeders (31) (NbTi) Machine mass: 23350 t (cryostat + VV + magnets) - shielding, divertor and manifolds: 7945 t + 1060 port plugs - magnet systems: 10150 t; cryostat:  820 t ESS Seminar, Nov 2011

  15. ITER Site : Construction- 6M€/day Power Supply Present HQ Building 39Buildings, 180 hectares 10 years of construction 20 years of operation Tokamak Hall PermanentOffice Buildings To Aix Parkings

  16. The Way to Fusion Power – The ITER (Hi-)story “For the benefit of mankind ” The idea for ITER originated from the Geneva Superpower Summit in 1985 where Gorbachev and Reagan proposed international effort to develop fusion energy… …“as an inexhaustible source of energy for the benefit of mankind”. November 21, 2006: China, Europe, India, Japan, Korea, Russian Federation and the United States of America sign the ITER Agreement

  17. RF CN European Union KO JP IN US ITER – Key Facts • Mega-Science Project among 7 Members: • China, EU, India, Japan, Korea, Russia & US • Designed to produce 500 MW of fusion power for an extended period of time • 10 years construction, 20 years operation • Cost:~5.4 billion Euros approved for construction, and ~5.5 billion for operation and decommissioning • EU 5/11, other six parties 1/11 each. Overall reserve of 10% of total.

  18. ATLAS Cavern ATLAS Collaboration (Status August 2010) 38 Countries 174 Institutions 3000 Scientific participants total (1000 Students) In July 2010 South Africa was unanimously admitted as Collaboration member, with the Institutes of the University of Johannesburg and the University of the Witwatersrand (and open to others in the future) Albany, Alberta, NIKHEF Amsterdam, Ankara, LAPP Annecy, Argonne NL, Arizona, UT Arlington, Athens, NTU Athens, Baku, IFAE Barcelona, Belgrade, Bergen, Berkeley LBL and UC, HU Berlin, Bern, Birmingham, UAN Bogota, Bologna, Bonn, Boston, Brandeis, Brasil Cluster, Bratislava/SAS Kosice, Brookhaven NL, Buenos Aires, Bucharest, Cambridge, Carleton, CERN, Chinese Cluster, Chicago, Chile, Clermont-Ferrand, Columbia, NBI Copenhagen, Cosenza, AGH UST Cracow, IFJ PAN Cracow, SMU Dallas, UT Dallas, DESY, Dortmund, TU Dresden, JINR Dubna, Duke, Edinburgh, Frascati, Freiburg, Geneva, Genoa, Giessen, Glasgow, Göttingen, LPSC Grenoble, Technion Haifa, Hampton, Harvard, Heidelberg, Hiroshima IT, Indiana, Innsbruck, Iowa SU, Iowa, UC Irvine, Istanbul Bogazici, KEK, Kobe, Kyoto, Kyoto UE, Lancaster, UN La Plata, Lecce, Lisbon LIP, Liverpool, Ljubljana, QMW London, RHBNC London, UC London, Lund, UA Madrid, Mainz, Manchester, CPPM Marseille, Massachusetts, MIT, Melbourne, Michigan, Michigan SU, Milano, Minsk NAS, Minsk NCPHEP, Montreal, McGill Montreal, RUPHE Morocco, FIAN Moscow, ITEP Moscow, MEPhI Moscow, MSU Moscow, LMU Munich, MPI Munich, Nagasaki IAS, Nagoya, Naples, New Mexico, New York, Nijmegen, Northern Illinois, BINP Novosibirsk, Ohio SU, Okayama, Oklahoma, Oklahoma SU, Olomouc, Oregon, LAL Orsay, Osaka, Oslo, Oxford, Paris VI and VII, Pavia, Pennsylvania, NPI Petersburg, Pisa, Pittsburgh, CAS Prague, CU Prague, TU Prague, IHEP Protvino, Regina, Rome I, Rome II, Rome III, Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, DAPNIA Saclay, Santa Cruz UC, Sheffield, Shinshu, Siegen, Simon Fraser Burnaby, SLAC, South Africa, Stockholm, KTH Stockholm, Stony Brook, Sydney, Sussex, AS Taipei, Tbilisi, Tel Aviv, Thessaloniki, Tokyo ICEPP, Tokyo MU, Tokyo Tech, Toronto, TRIUMF, Tsukuba, Tufts, Udine/ICTP, Uppsala, UI Urbana, Valencia, UBC Vancouver, Victoria, Waseda, Washington, Weizmann Rehovot, FH Wiener Neustadt, Wisconsin, Wuppertal, Würzburg, Yale, Yerevan ESS Seminar, Nov 2011 ASP Forum Day, 21-8-2010 Peter Jenni (CERN) Road Map for Discoveries 19

  19. Atacama Large mm Array ESS Seminar, Nov 2011

  20. ITER: - Running before learning to walk Little technical risk if compared to Manhatten project or “man to the moon” Substantial organizational risk: this is the largest science project on earth today, 80% In Kind with a procurement sharing that dramatically increases risk in a community that is not used yet to execution in large collaborations. ESS Seminar, Nov 2011

  21. Procurement Sharing: Example ITER The driver for “In kind” is: • “Fair return” • Technology transfer/development • Exponential Growth of nr of interfaces • Of course that’s not cheap…. Where duplication of infrastructure is only one factor. Multiple teams. Multiple decision points. ESS Seminar, Nov 2011

  22. Coping with the large number of interfaces: Much more thorough documentation is needed- many more interface control docs are required

  23. Concept Design & Engineering Studies Concept Control Documents Concept Design Review Preliminary Design & Engineering Studies Preliminary Control Documents Preliminary Design Review Final Design & Engineering Studies Final Control Documents PA Issue for Functional Specification Final Design Review Manufacturing Drawings Manufacturing Readiness Review PA Issue for Detailed Design PA Issue for Build-to-Print Distributed Procurement • The more distribted the procurement, the larger the number of interfaces • The more interfaces, the stricter the configuration control necessary Basic Sequence of Design Development and Timing to procurement ESS Seminar, Nov 2011

  24. Duplication of Infrastructure is one result: TF and CS Jacketing in JA 950 m ESS Seminar, Nov 2011 TF & CS Jacketing Lines (Jun. 09)

  25. TF and PF Jacketing in CN TF & PF Jacketing Lines at ASIPP (March−June 09) ESS Seminar, Nov 2011

  26. TF & PF Jacketing Lines at ASIPP (March−June 09) ESS Seminar, Nov 2011

  27. Multi cultural – Multi lab – Multi country Programs and Projects are common today-- • Deutsch: Turmbau zu Babel • Português: Torre de Babel • English: Tower of Babel • Français : La Tour de Babel • Español: Torre de Babel • 中文: 巴別塔 • 日本語:バベルの塔 • Русский: Вавилонская башня • हिंदु : टॉवर का कोलाहल • 한국어: 바벨탑 • How to create a team that marches into one direction? • How to organize the work? • How to distribute authority (not only responsibility)? ESS Seminar, Nov 2011

  28. Integration between the Central- and the off site teams - Basic Roles and Responsibilities - ESS Seminar, Nov 2011

  29. A good team can compensate for many mistakes… • To be effective: • Intelligence • Motivation • Good co-workers • The greatest asset is always the team • From all over the world • From all kinds of laboratories and industries ESS Seminar, Nov 2011

  30. Budget Driving the Schedule Going to SC linac • DOE supported SNS immensely by making sure that we got the budget to execute the plan that was laid out. • Each year had about 20% contingency included in the then year plan. • One can do a lot with trust between project and the governance Baseline approval ESS Seminar, Nov 2011

  31. The End The SNS Schedule • At the beginning we had 18 month of float on a 7 years construction FY 2003 2002 2004 2006 2005 2006 actual 60 days Front-End DTL/CCL SCL DTL Tank 1 Ring DTL Tanks 1-3 Target 2001 plan 460 days ESS Seminar, Nov 2011

  32. For real Performance: “It is the first published schedule that counts, not the last one” …. G.A.Voss First Plasma ITER Construction 2021 2022 2023 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 TF Coils (EU) Case Winding Mockups Complete TF10 TF15 Central Solenoid (US) CS Final Design Approved CS3L CS3U CS Ready for Machine Assembly Vacuum Vessel (EU) VV Fabrication Contract Award VV 05 VV09 VV07 Buildings & Site Construction Contract Award Tokamak Bldg 11 RFE Tokamak Assembly Start Machine Assembly Tokamak Basic Machine Assembly Start Install CS Start Cryostat Closure Ex Vessel Assembly In Vessel Assembly Assembly Phase 2 Assembly Phase 3 ITER Operations Pump Down & Integrated Commissioning Plasma Operations Integrated Commissioning ESS Seminar, Nov 2011

  33. Cost development • Spend $1.41 Billion dollars in 7 years with a peak of ~ 1 M$/day during peak construction. • ~ $6.5 M contingency left at the end for scope additions ESS Seminar, Nov 2011

  34. Who Controls whom? Example: SNS Cash Flow ESS Seminar, Nov 2011

  35. Responsibility Authority Design Decision Funding Decision ITER: IO and DA Governance and Decision Making Authority Government IO Council IO Management Government Administration DA Management Project Control Construction ESS Seminar, Nov 2011

  36. EU Euratom CN IN JA RF US ITER Decision Process CCEFU IC STAC MAC European Commission Fusion RDT DAs CN INJAKORFUS F4E IO Governing Board Excecutive Committee ESS Seminar, Nov 2011

  37. What has SNS to do with ITER? • Answer - A lot: • The scale of the project is larger but similar (<x10 bigger). • Distribution of work is (should be) similar (central team does integration and operation) off site teams do construction. • Management issues are similar – including the challenges it faces. • Technologies are very similar. • So what’s different: • There is no single governing agency (like DOE) with ultimate control. • The physical distribution is wider and more complex, including the languages. • It’s a community has not grown up with “collaborations”` Shown to the ITER interim Council in April 2006… ESS Seminar, Nov 2011

  38. Multilab / Multipartner Organizations… is the glass half full or half empty? Focus on the strength not the weakness! • Large organizations do add overhead functions. • Multi Lab Organization like SNS, ITER, Linear Collider, ESS, X-FEL bring an enormous amount of expertise to the table (and healthy) competition. • It makes it easier to transition the required workforce for design and construction in and out of the project and hire the right people for integration, installation, commissioning and operation. • These type of models are considered as the only model for building large science projects in the future. • Generates political support. • THEY ARE NOT THE CHEAPEST OR FASTEST WAY TO BUILD PROJECTS! • It only works if there is “equal distribution of pain” ESS Seminar, Nov 2011

  39. Failure is not an option – at least not in Europe! • The 6 stages of any project: • 1 Enthusiasm • 2 Disillusionment • 3 Panic • 4 Search for the guilty • 5 Punishment of the innocent • 6 Reward of the non-participants In many countries time is the contingency to finish… in some countries that’s not true. ESS Seminar, Nov 2011

  40. Cost Performance of DOE projects in the 80’s-90’s 1986 ESS Seminar, Nov 2011

  41. Why do projects overrun?“In Kind” or not? Certainly not the only driver. Even industry/ industry-government is not performing as well as many people think. Comparing Across the Board ESS Seminar, Nov 2011

  42. Conclusion • The answer is: It’s both. A Curse and a Blessing • Additional pain with little gain • No more big projects without it • Central control is the key to success, but everybody needs to be a winner • Equal distribution of pain → art of management in an “in kind” situation. • Politics and micromanagement by the stakeholders can not successfully drive a project. • The technically competent people must decide on the “who does what” • The central team must be empowered to decide and to implement • There has to be enough contingency in schedule and cost and both need to be centrally managed to fill the “cracks” in the interfaces. → then “In Kind” is not a problem in all its variants. ESS Seminar, Nov 2011

  43. Experimental Test Facility - KEK • Prototype Damping Ring for X-band Linear Collider • Development of Beam Instrumentation and Control ESS Seminar, Nov 2011

  44. Final Focus Test Faclity - SLAC ESS Seminar, Nov 2011

  45. e- beam diagnostics e- beam diagnostics bunch compressor laser driven electron gun undulator photon beam diagnostics pre-accelerator superconducting accelerator modules TESLA Test Facility Linac - DESY 240 MeV 120 MeV 16 MeV 4 MeV ESS Seminar, Nov 2011

More Related