accelerator project mats lindroos head of accelerator may 19, 2015
TRANSCRIPT
Accelerator Project
Mats LindroosHead of Accelerator
www.europeanspallationsource.seMay 19, 2015
Accelerator News
• The annual review of ESS went well, see next slides• ESS will become an European Infrastructure Consortium
(ERIC) with the target date for transition set to 1 September 2015
• The decision on when and how ESS transits to the ESS site will be taken in the coming weeks
• Work has started on an ES&H manual for ESS, please give input to Lali
• A publication Board for the ESS accelerator collaboration is being set in place, details to follow by mail and at the next TB by John Weisend
2
Accelerator Technical performances
3
Design Drivers:
High Average Beam Power
5 MW
High Peak Beam Power
125 MW
High Availability
> 95%
Key parameters:-2.86 ms pulses-2 GeV-62.5 mA peak-14 Hz-Protons (H+)-Low losses-Minimize energy use-Flexible design for mitigation and future upgrades
Spokes Medium β High βDTLMEBTRFQLEBTSource HEBT & Contingency Target
2.4 m 4.6 m 3.8 m 39 m 56 m 77 m 179 m
75 keV 3.6 MeV 90 MeV 216 MeV 571 MeV 2000 MeV
352.21 MHz
704.42 MHz
• The scope contingency for the accelerator project consists of the RF sources and installation costs (after 2019) for the high beta-part of the linac
• The fully equipped cryomdoule for the high-beta linac are IK contributions and are not part of the scope contingency. The infrastructures needed for the construction of these are only available during ESS construction.
Accelerator Selected technologies
ESS ADPARTNERS
Accelerator Division 2015Mats Lindroos
Head of Division
BEAM PHYSICSHåkan Danared – GLMohammad Eshraqi
– Deputy GLRenato De Prisco
Ryoichi MiyamotoMarc Munoz
Christine DarveYngve Levinsen
SPECIALIZED TECHNICAL SERVICESJohn Weisend II – GL
Wolfgang Hees - Deputy GLFrithiof Jensen
Anton Lundmark Evangelia Vaena
Matthew Conlon Georg Hulla
Walter Wittmer
CRYOGENICS SECTIONPhilipp Arnold – SL
Xilong WangJaroslaw Fydrych
John JurnsXiaotao Su (50%)
Ali Farsian
VACUUM SECTIONPeter Ladd – SL
Marcelo Juni
FerreiraHilko Spoelstra
Giobatta Lanfranco
RFAnders Sunesson – GL
Morten Jensen - Deputy GLRihua Zeng
Rafael Montano
RF SOURCES SECTION
Morten Jensen – SLChiara Marrelli
Rutambhara YogiStevo Calic
POWER CONVERTERS
SECTIONCarlos de Almeida
Martins – SLGöran Göransson
BEAM INSTRUMENTATION(Incl. Safety, 3p)
Andreas Jansson – GLThomas Shea - Deputy GL
Benjamin Cheymol Irena Dolenc KittelmannHooman Hassanzadegan
Lali TchelidzeCyrille ThomasHinko Kocevar
Maurizio DonnaViatcheslav Grishin Michal Jarosz (oPAC)
Charlotte Roose (oPAC)Luigi Esposito
Duy Phan
INTEGRATIONDavid McGinnis - GL
Stephen Molloy – Deputy GLEugene TankeNikolaos Gazis
Håkan Danared – Deputy Head of DivisionJohn Weisend II – Deputy Head of Acc Projects
David McGinnis – Chief EngineerLali Tchelidze – Safety
Steve Peggs (C)
Caroline Prabert - Personal AssistantGunilla Jacobsson - Divisional Planning A.
Solveig Aas - Team Assistant
ENGINEERING SECTION
Stephen Molloy – SL
Aurélien PontonEnric Bargalló
Edgar SargsyanInigo Alonso
58 employees (2015-04-01)
New staff during 2015 in orange
30133012
3014
3011
3015
3121 3122 3141
31423151
3010
3010
G.Jacobsson
High Level Master Schedule
There are many “close critical path” in the project, notably RFQ, DTL, Cryomodules and RF systems
EVM Graph
Behind Schedule (small variance for SV)
& Under Budget
010,000,00020,000,00030,000,00040,000,00050,000,00060,000,00070,000,00080,000,00090,000,000
Grand Total
EarnedActualsScheduled
Time-phase period
Valu
e
31/12/2013 31/12/2014 31/01/2015 28/02/2015 31/03/2015 30/04/2015
Earned 14,709,401 31,902,072 34,081,195 36,218,381 39,725,519 41,555,714
Actuals 14,709,401 32,562,930 34,878,612 35,533,408 37,955,489 39,250,707
Scheduled 14,709,401 32,457,790 34,162,006 37,255,026 40,061,049 42,620,253
April 2015
EVM Graph - Comments
Schedule variance = Earned Value – Planned Value
The schedule variance from Jan to Apr 2015 (-1,1 M€) is mainly due to:
• -0,6 M€ due to delay in CPI/Thales prototyping design, 704 System for Uppsala Test Stand (WP08).
• -0.3 M€ some fluctuation split in all the RF System WP due to some detailed re-plan introduced for the annual review (WP08). This has no impact on the final delivery date or on the beam delivery milestone.
• -0.2 M€ minor slippage and delays (WP’s 16, 17) and need for minor replanning activities (WP’s 15, 16).
Behind Schedule(small variance for SV)
EVM Graph - Comments
Cost Variance = Earned Value – Actual Value
The cost variance from Jan to Apr 2015 (+2,3 M€) is mainly due to:• +0.9 M€ Cost variance due to no actuals for In Kind work. Will be fixed
next month (NCFE WP03)• +0.4 M€ Late invoices from CNRS (Spoke WP04)• +0.7 M€ Late invoices from CEA (Elliptical WP05)• +0.5 M€ Effect of re-planning of Vacuum and Beam Delivery system (WP12
and WP06)• +0.7 M€ Effect of re-planning of Beam Instrumentation (WP07)• +0.2 M€ Salary fluctuations in the whole Project• -0.7M€ Invoice from Uppsala University received in April for period Jan-
Mar resulting in adding -185 k€ to the CV last month for Test Stands (WP10)• -0.4 M€ Some discrepancies due to invoices for on-going 2014 contract
booked on the old PCC i.e. WP8 at the place of WP17 (Power Converters WP created on Sept 2014)
Under Budget
10
Accelerator – Overview of ESS Procurement Plan
• 21 procurements identified 2015-2020– 1 procurements <200,000 EUR– 20 procurements >200,000 EUR
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 20200
0.51
1.52
2.53
3.54
4.5
Procurements / year (based on contract signature)
WP1 WP8 WP11
WP12 WP17
Cabling RF systems
Cryogenics Vacuum
Power converters
• The Table doesn’t include procurements done by in-kind partners
• Additional procurement for interface regions (<200 k€) will be added as soon as in-kind negotiations are completed
Annual review, General recommendations
• Very positive, impressive progress since 2014. We have now a real project with the right atmosphere.
• ESS is now a rolling machine, which will reach its target.• ESS is defining also for future projects how to deal with in-
kind. A very impressive progress in this area.• Schedule is very tight, but not impossible.• More than 100 people have joined ESS in the last 12 months.• Technical problems are finding solutions• We are seeing an increase in the amount of detail to deal with
(this is very positive!!).• Operation begins to be an integral part of the overall project.
11
Annual review – Accelerator 1
• TOP 10: Expedite as much as possible the formal design review process across ACCSYS: both the horizontal WP reviews and the vertical integrated system reviews. In addition, consider adding a safety and QA rep to the design review committee and tracking all actions post-review until completion. We endorse the established process of the so-called Vertical Reviews followed by Critical Design Reviews. Ultimately, the goal is to get all requirements for IK contributions established and TAs signed before the end of this year.
• TOP 10: "Get your hands dirty!" -- the ESS/AD should start establishing some technical credibility and developing the technical workforce by getting their hands on relevant hardware systems as soon as possible. We endorse the so-called "Blinky Light Test", the rf test stand and the opportunity of early integration of the ion source, its control system and the beam diagnostics. Also, the Uppsala test stand should be used as an opportunity to train staff.
12
Annual review – Accelerator 2
• Add risk assessment and risk impact to the overall risk register. This will help focus on the high impact risks and also provide an assessment of the adequacy of the 50M€ scope contingency.
• Add risks with positive impacts to the registry. For example, the new modulator topology under development may save costs. Another example is the proposed use of large-grain Niobium sheets for cavity fabrication.
• Consider writing the Technical Addenda at a high level while referencing the ACCSYS DOORS requirements database.
13
Annual review – Accelerator 3
• Consider the following to optimize ACCSYS organization for executing a large science project– Review the authority of the Work Package Leaders to ensure it is
adequate to successfully execute their scope of work– Employ centralized common project tools across ESS (Lund and in-kind
partners) to minimize to the extent possible the institutional boundaries between ESS partners.
– Liberally use telecons to improve communication and coordination amongst all the ACCSYS institutional partners.
– Add a high-level ESH person to AD. The AD Head should be able to delegate some of his functions to this person. For example, procurements of hazardous materials, such as compressed gas cylinders. Also, this person would help AD Head to review and approve various AD activities, e.g. test facilities operations start.
14
Annual review – Accelerator 4
• Investigate options to improve the commissioning plan (and schedule) particularly as it applies to the low energy front end.
• Review the ACCSYS spares policy and strategy. Some of the proposed spares may be spares needed for manufacturing, not for operations.
• We think that they should completely separate the diagnostic and the interlock functions of the BLMs.
• The hot cooling water should be seriously evaluated. It seems that this idea has many caveats, including risk for personnel accidents and shorter lifetime of expensive components, such as klystrons. We doubt that it is really environmentally friendly.
15
Reserve slides
16
Control Change Boards (CCB) & control flow for ACCSYS
17
ESS governance
ESS Board / STC
CEO / ESS CCB
ACCSYS Mngt Team
CCB-A
CCB-B
CCB-C’
via ACCSYS (deputy) Project Leader
weekly minutes, actions & ACCSYS Control Log
via CEO
status report at meeting,ACCSYS Control Log
ACCSYS TB
Collaboration board
CCB-C
reports
delegates, approves
ACCSYS Project Leadervia EPG and through CEO
Quarterly
1-2/year
via ACCSYS (deputy) Project leader