Download - Norbert Holtkamp November 18, 2011
Page 1
Building Large Scale FacilitiesLessons Learned from SNS and ITER
In-kind Contributions: A Curse or a Blessing?
Norbert Holtkamp
November 18, 2011
ESS Seminar, Nov 2011
Page 3
Projects based on “In-Kind” Contributions• 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
ESS Seminar, Nov 2011
Page 4
The Three Phases of a Project
1. The Concept: Develop the idea. Do the initial layout. Convince the politicians. Leave out the details….
2. The Implementation: Set up the organization, finish the design, get the money (-> Baseline)
3. Implement the baseline, improve the design details, manage the contracts, manage installation and initial operation
OPERATION
• New team
• New team
• New team
ESS Seminar, Nov 2011
Page 5
Scope – Schedule – Cost! In that order…
ESS Seminar, Nov 2011
Page 6
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
Page 7
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
Page 8
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
Page 9
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
Page 10
International Technology Review Panel
…in HEP at least there is process for decision making
ESS Seminar, Nov 2011
Page 11
2000
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.
11ESS Seminar, Nov 2011
Page 12
The Spallation Neutron Source Partnership
~177 M$ ~60 M$
~113 M$~20 M$
Description AcceleratorProject Support 75.6Front End Systems 20.8 20.8Linac Systems 315.9 315.9Ring & Transfer Systems 142.0 142.0Target Systems 108.2Instrument Systems 63.3Conventional Facilities 378.9Integrated Control Systems 59.7 59.7BAC 1,164.4Contingency 28.3
TEC 1,192.7R&D 100.0 80.0
Pre-Operations 119.0 95.2
TPC 1,411.7 713.6
~63 M$
~106 M$
SNS-ORNL Accelerator systems: ~167 M$
At peak : ~500 People worked on the constructionof the SNS accelerator– only ~200 required for Operation ESS Seminar, Nov 2011
Page 13
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
Page 14
The Target building a “highly integrated” construction project…
14ESS Seminar, Nov 2011
Page 15
Feeders (31)(NbTi)
Correction Coils (18)(NbTi)
Poloidal Field Coils (6)(NbTi)
Toroidal Field Coils (18)(Nb3Sn)
Central Solenoid (6)(Nb3Sn)
Divertor (54 cassettes)
Blanket (440 modules)
Cryostat (29 m high x 28 m dia.)
Vacuum Vessel (9 sectors)
Thermal Shield (4 sub-assemblies)
In-Vessel Coils(2-VS & 27-ELM)
ITER (highlights)Fusion gain Q = 10, Fusion Power: ~500MW, Ohmic burn 300 to 500 sec
Goal Q=5 for 3000 sec
Machine mass: 23350 t (cryostat + VV + magnets)- shielding, divertor and manifolds: 7945 t + 1060 port plugs- magnet systems: 10150 t; cryostat: 820 t
15ESS Seminar, Nov 2011
Page 16
ITER ITER Site : Construction- 6M€/day Site : Construction- 6M€/day
Tokamak Hall
Power Supply
PermanentOffice Buildings
Parkings
39 Buildings, 180 hectares10 years of construction20 years of operation
Present HQ Building
To Aix
Page 17
The Way to Fusion Power – The ITER (Hi-)story
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”.
“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
Page 18
ITER – Key FactsITER – 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.
European Union
CN
IN
RF
KO
JP
US
Page 19
ATLAS Cavern
19ASP Forum Day, 21-8-2010 Peter Jenni (CERN)
Road Map for Discoveries
ATLAS Collaboration
(Status August 2010)
38 Countries 174 Institutions 3000 Scientific participants total(1000 Students)
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
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)
19ESS Seminar, Nov 2011
Page 20
Atacama Large mm Array
20ESS Seminar, Nov 2011
Page 21
ITER: - Running before learning to walkLittle 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
Page 22
Procurement Sharing: Example ITERThe driver for “In kind” is:
1. “Fair return” 2. Technology transfer/development3. Exponential Growth of nr of interfaces4. Of course that’s not cheap…. Where duplication of
infrastructure is only one factor. Multiple teams. Multiple decision points.
ESS Seminar, Nov 2011
Page 23
Coping with the large number of interfaces: Much more thorough documentation is needed- many more interface control docs are required
Page 24
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
Final Design Review
Manufacturing Drawings
Manufacturing Readiness Review
PA Issue forFunctional Specification
PA Issue forDetailed Design
PA Issue forBuild-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
Page 25
Duplication of Infrastructure is one result: TF and CS Jacketing in JA
TF & CS Jacketing Lines (Jun. 09)
950
m
ESS Seminar, Nov 2011
Page 26
TF and PF Jacketing in CN
TF & PF Jacketing Lines at ASIPP (March−June 09) ESS Seminar, Nov 2011
Page 27
TF & PF Jacketing Lines at ASIPP (March−June 09) ESS Seminar, Nov 2011
Page 28
Multi cultural – Multi lab – Multi country Programs and Projects are common today--
Deutsch: Turmbau zu BabelPortuguês: Torre de Babel English: Tower of BabelFrançais : La Tour de BabelEspañol: Torre de Babel中文 : 巴別塔日本語 : バベルの塔Русский: Вавилонская башняहिं��दु : टॉ�वर का� का�ला��ला 한국어 : 바벨탑
1) How to create a team that marches into one direction?2) How to organize the work?3) How to distribute authority (not only responsibility)?
ESS Seminar, Nov 2011
Page 29
Neutrino Factory Study
SNS – Oak Ridge
ALMA
ATLAS
ITER Organization
Linear Collider
Universities and Laboratories
Six DOE laboratories
EU, JA, DOE/NSF
Participating Universities/Laboratories
Seven Members DA
Participating Countries
– Planning / Design– Building construction (Integration)
– Integration / QA / Safety / Licensing / Schedule
– Installation
– Testing + Commissioning
– Operation
– Funding
– Allocation of Scope
– Detailing / Designing*
– Procuring / Manufacturing
– Delivering
– Supporting installation
– Conformance
– Funding
Integration between the Central- and the off site teams - Basic Roles and Responsibilities -
29ESS Seminar, Nov 2011
Page 30
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
Page 31
Budget Driving the Schedule• 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
ESS Seminar, Nov 2011
Baseline approval
Going to SC linac
Page 32
The SNS Schedule
• At the beginning we had 18 month of float on a 7 years construction
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
DTL Tanks 1-3
Front-End
DTL Tank 1
DTL/CCL
SCL
Ring
Target
The End
FY
460 days
60 days
2001 plan
2006 actual
32ESS Seminar, Nov 2011
Page 33
For real Performance: “It is the first published schedule that counts, not the last one” …. G.A.Voss
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
First Plasma
ITER Construction
TF Coils (EU)
Tokamak Assembly
Tokamak Basic Machine Assembly
Ex Vessel Assembly
In Vessel Assembly
Start Install CS Start Cryostat Closure
Pump Down & Integrated Commissioning
Start Machine Assembly
2021 2022
ITER Operations
Assembly Phase 2 Assembly Phase
3
Plasma Operations
2023
Buildings & Site
Central Solenoid (US)
Case Winding Mockups Complete TF10 TF15
VV Fabrication Contract Award VV 05 VV09 VV07
Vacuum Vessel (EU)CS Final Design Approved CS3L CS3U CS Ready for Machine Assembly
Construction Contract Award Tokamak Bldg 11 RFE
Integrated Commissioning
ESS Seminar, Nov 2011
Page 34
• Spend $1.41 Billion dollars in 7 years with a peak of ~ 1 M$/day during peak construction.
• ~ $6.5 M contingency left at the end for scope additions
Nov 2001 [$M]
May 2006 [$M]
Contingency
1.01 Research & Development
103.8
99.9
-3.8%
1.10 Operations 115.2
119.1
3.4%
Total OPC (Burdened, Escalated Dollars) 219.0 219.0
0.0%
1.02 Project Support 72.3
72.1
-0.3%
1.03 Front End Systems 19.3
20.8
7.9%
1.04 Linac Systems 272.4
311.0
14.2%
1.05 Ring & Transfer System
146.2
146.6
0.3%
1.06 Target Systems 95.3
114.9
20.5%
1.07 Instrument Systems 62.3
63.9
2.6%
1.08 Conventional Facilities
310.7
398.5
28.3%
1.09 Integrated Control Systems
58.6
58.5
-0.1%
Total 1037.0 1186.3 14.4%
Cost development
ESS Seminar, Nov 2011
Page 35
Who Controls whom? Example: SNS
Cash
Flow
ESS Seminar, Nov 2011
Page 36
ITER: IO and DA Governance and Decision Making Authority
GovernmentGovernment
GovernmentGovernmentAdministration Administration
DA ManagementDA Management
Fu
nd
ing
Fu
nd
ing
Decisio
Decisio
n
n
IO CouncilIO Council
IO Management IO Management
Project ControlProject Control
ConstructionConstruction
AuthorityAuthority ResponsibilityResponsibility
Des
ign
Des
ign
Dec
isio
Dec
isio
n
n
ESS Seminar, Nov 2011
Page 37
IC
STAC MAC
IO
DAsCNINJAKORFUS
F4E
Governing Board
Excecutive Committee
European Commission Fusion RDT
IN JA RF US EUEuratom
CN CCEFU
ITER Decision ProcessESS Seminar, Nov 2011
Page 38
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…
38ESS Seminar, Nov 2011
Page 39
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
Page 40
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
ESS Seminar, Nov 2011
In many countries time is the contingency to finish… in some countries that’s not true.
Page 41
Cost Performance of DOE projects in the 80’s-90’s
1986
ESS Seminar, Nov 2011
Page 42
Comparing Across the Board
• 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.
ESS Seminar, Nov 2011
Page 43
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
Page 44
Experimental Test Facility - KEK
• Prototype Damping Ring for X-band Linear Collider
• Development of Beam Instrumentation and Control
44ESS Seminar, Nov 2011
Page 45
Final Focus Test Faclity - SLAC
45ESS Seminar, Nov 2011
Page 46
TESLA Test Facility Linac - DESY
laser driven electron gun
photon beam diagnostics
undulatorbunch
compressor
superconducting accelerator modules
pre-accelerator
e- beam diagnostics
e- beam diagnostics
240 MeV 120 MeV 16 MeV 4 MeV
46ESS Seminar, Nov 2011