Operation SE view point Romuald Duperrier ESS SE manager

SE through ESS lifecycle 2 CONCEPTUALIZATIONCONSTRUCTION USE RESTOREGREEN FIELD FEASABILITY EXPRESSION OF THE NEEDS CONTRACTING OWNER PROJECTTEAM Developmentcycle Systems Engineering Systems Integration Subsytem manufacturing Delivery OPERATION STATEOF ART, R&D SITERECONDITIONING staffreemployment program, disassembly, nuclearwaste management, demolition. maintenance, upgrades and existing facility adaptation. Evolution Reingineering

Technology Readiness Levels TRL9 – identical system successful on an operational environment in an identical configuration TRL8 – identical system configured and qualified but not demonstrated on an operational environment TRL7 – prototype system demonstrated in the operational environment TRL6 - prototype system demonstrated in a relevant environment TRL5 - components of the system demonstrated in a relevant environment TRL4 - components of the system demonstrated in a controlled environment TRL3 - analytical and experimental proof-of-concept TRL2 - concept or application formulated TRL1 - basic principles observed and reported 3

Screening of the FBS elements 4 INDEXNameTRL 1ESS 1.1 Integrated Control System PSS MPS TSS Control rooms Applications8 1.2 Neutron Scattering Systems Science Support Systems Instrument Suite DMSC9 1.3 Accelerator Isrc & LEBT RFQ MEBT DTL SPK MBL HBL HEBT RF systems Beam Diagnostics7 1.5 Target Station Fluid Systems Moderators and Reflectors systems Monolith Systems Target Systems Remote Handling Systems8 1.6 Radioactive Material Handling Medium and low radioactivity material facility Handling Transportation Packaging Local storage9 1.7Site energy management6 First assessment based on SE division knowledge. It would be interesting to redo the assessment with related divisions.

System lifetime and reengineering [ESS TDR, ESS ] Several systems will behave as consumables: – Moderator Reflector => 1 year – Target systems => 5 years Others will experience replacements: – Instruments => 10 years each in average (too pesimistic?) Others will be added to maximize ESS flux usage: – Up to 35 instruments is assumed (too pesimistic?) Note that renewal of consumed systems will be a source of reengineering activities but not systematically (a 50 % factor is assumed here for argument’s sake). 5

From TRL to SE effort [Eric C. Honour, INCOSE04] Seeking optimum level of SE 15 % of the total project effort. Grade SE effort against TRL: – TRL 1 to 3 : 15% SE – TRL 4 to 6 : 10% SE – TRL 7 to 8 : 5% SE – TRL 9 : no SE 6

SE effort breakdown (15 or 10 or 5% of the total effort) 7 Systems engineering effort distribution % across project phases (ISO/IEC 15288) ConceptualizeDevelopTest & EvaluationTransition to operation ANSI/EIA 632 Fundamental processes Typical SE effort (%) Estimated ESS SE effort (%) Acquisition and Supply70 Technical Management1710 System Design3010 Product Realization150 Technical evaluation3110 [COSYSMO: a SE cost model, B.W. Boehm et al]

First estimate and findings Based on the assumptions in the previous slides and a centralization of the SE expertise and the cost book figures, 6FTE are needed in average across 40 years. It is unclear at the moment which part of this has to be funded by the operational budget as several projects during operation will be partially funded by other financial sources. Also scheduling over the 40 years is an issue due to the uncertainty inherent to the nature of the projects. It is recommended to keep a core team of a few individuals (same for other project management activities) and to rely on consultants or IK partners when projects are decided. Missing: logistics, safety, tools, training. 8