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


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


Page 5

Scope – Schedule – Cost! In that order…


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.


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!


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.


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”


Page 10

International Technology Review Panel

…in HEP at least there is process for decision making


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.


Page 14

The Target building a “highly integrated” construction project…


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


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)


Page 20

Atacama Large mm Array


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.


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.


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


Page 25

Duplication of Infrastructure is one result: TF and CS Jacketing in JA

TF & CS Jacketing Lines (Jun. 09)

950

m


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)?


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 -


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


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


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


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


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


Page 35

Who Controls whom? Example: SNS

Cash

Flow


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


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…


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”


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


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


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.


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


Page 45

Final Focus Test Faclity - SLAC


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
