Assessment & Prioritisation of - PowerPoint Presentation

Slide1

Assessment & Prioritisation of EuPRAXIA Technical Options

Maria Weikum

10

th

Steering Committee Meeting 11.06.2018

2

M. Weikum – 10

th

Steering Committee Meeting 11.06.2018

1. General Process

Steering Committee discusses and decides on criteria and criteria weighting to assess technical options

WP leaders collect input

from

EuPRAXIA

community for all technical options to assess them by defined criteria

WP leaders combine this information into specific proposals, where not yet ready, and send to EuPRAXIA management  to be submitted: ratings / values + explanation + (optionally) suggestion for category (e.g. as a development path option)EuPRAXIA management homogenises results and calculates overall scores for each technical optionSteering Committee discusses and decides on A. EuPRAXIA Baseline(s) B. Development Paths C. Risk Mitigating and Backup Options based on: scores + explanations

3

Proposed steps in decision process

M. Weikum – 10th Steering Committee Meeting 11.06.2018

 10th SC Meeting

 Until 1st July 2018

 Liverpool Collaboration Week

4

Insert author and occasion

Criteria

Rating / value

Explanation

ScoreRecommended categorisationWith relative weighting x in bracketsSpecifically defined for each criterion (see following pages)Justification for given rating / value; e.g. simulation outputs, cost estimates, etc.= Ʃ (weighting * normalized rating) (to be completed by EuPRAXIA Management Team)

Options: A. EuPRAXIA baseline(s)

B. Development Paths,

C. Risk mitigating and backup options (based on ratings / values, explanations and scores)1. Technical readiness level today (x %)2. Technical readiness level in 5 years (x

%)

3. Innovation & technical disruptiveness (x %)

4. Technical performance (based on simulations / experiments) (

x

%)

5. FEL performance in nm range (approx. 1-10nm) (based on S2E simulations) (x %)  6. FEL performance in sub-nm range (based on S2E simulations) (x %)  7. Machine performance for HEP applications (x %)8. Machine performance for other non-FEL applications (incl. compact radiation sources, medical imaging, positrons) (x %)9. New parameter reach beyond conventional technology (x %)10. Future technology / performance reach and impact (x %)11. Flexibility and tuning capabilities (x %)12. Upgradability (x %)13. Cost (x %)14. Size (x %)

Example template for each technical option

Note: not all criteria will be applicable for all technical option decisions (e.g. FEL performance assessment for choice of injector diagnostics)

In practice, what values should we use to rate a technical option on a certain criterion?

Proposal

:

different scale for each criterion

:Criteria 1.-2. Technical readiness levels: value betw. 1 and 9 based on Horizon 2020 technical readiness levels: https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/other/wp/2018-2020/annexes/h2020-wp1820-annex-g-trl_en.pdf Criteria 3., 10.-12. Innovation, impact, flexibility and upgradability: value betw. 0 and 5 based on qualitative assessment ranging from none (0) to very high (5)Criteria 4.-8. Simulation-based performance: value betw. 0 and 5 based on comparison of simulation results with a common, pre-defined list of realistic, desired performance parameters, e.g Criteria 9. Reach beyond conventional technology: value betw. 0 and 5 based on comparison of simulation / experiment performance results with common, pre-defined comparison values from conventional technology, e.g. performance below conventional technology (0) to performance approximately 100% or more above conventional technology (5)Criteria 13.-14. Cost & size: value betw. 0 and 5 based on specific quantitative scale for each criterion, e.g. for cost:

5

Rating scales

Some or all variables by more than 50% outside of defined range (0) All variables at maximum by 10% outside of defined range (3)All variables at maximum by 50% outside of defined range (1) Performances matches defined range (4)All variables at maximum by 25% outside of defined range (2) Performance exceeds defined range (5)Extremely high: >100 Mio. € (0) Medium: 10,000 – 99,999 € (3)Very high: (1) Low: 1,000 – 9,999 € (4)High: 100,000 – 999,999 € (2) Very low: 0 – 999 € (5) Here an additional explanation / justification of the rating is especially important

M. Weikum – 10th Steering Committee Meeting 11.06.2018

6

Insert author and occasion

Criteria

Rating / value

Explanation

ScoreRecommended categorisationWith relative weighting x in bracketsSpecifically defined for each criterion (see following pages)Justification for given rating / value; e.g. simulation outputs, cost estimates, etc.= Ʃ (weighting * normalized rating) (to be completed by EuPRAXIA Management Team)

Options: A. EuPRAXIA baseline(s)

B. Development Paths,

C. Risk mitigating and backup options (based on ratings / values, explanations and scores)1. Technical readiness level today (7 %)2 (out of 9)Concept based on theory and simulation only, no experimental demonstration yet= 7 * 2/9+ 7 * 3/9 + 7 * 5/5 + 7 * 3/5+ 7 * 3/5 + 7 * 2/5 + 7 * 4/5+ 7 * 4/5 + 7 * 1/5 + 7 * 5/5

+ 7 * 3/5 + 7 * 3/5 + 8 * 2/5+ 8 * 4/5

= 59.7

B. Development Path

Because the level of innovation and future performance reach is high and the performance for HEP and other non-FEL applications promising, but the technical readiness level today and in 5 years is still low.

2. Technical readiness level in 5 years (

7 %)3 (out of 9)First experiments planned in 2-3 years, expect some difficulties3. Innovation & technical disruptiveness (7 %)5 (out of 5)Based on entirely new technology4. Technical performance (based on simulations / experiments) (7 %)3Simulation results5. FEL performance in nm range (approx. 1-10nm) (based on S2E simulations) (7 %)  3Simulation results6. FEL performance in sub-nm range (based on S2E simulations) (7 %)  27. Machine performance for HEP applications (7 %)48. Machine performance for other non-FEL applications (incl. compact radiation sources, medical imaging, positrons) (7 %)49. New parameter reach beyond conventional technology (7 %)110. Future technology / performance reach and impact (7 %)5

11. Flexibility and tuning capabilities (7 %)

3

12. Upgradability (

7

%)

3

13. Cost (

8

%)

2

Cost estimate

14. Size (8 %)4Size estimate

Example Calculation

A. Laser technology

B. RF technology:

B.1 Beam driver generation

B.2 RF technology for photo-injectorC. Electron injector:

C.1 Injection technique (incl. plasma target design for plasma-based technologies)

C.2 Focusing & matchingC.3 Driver removal and laser & beam couplingC.4 DiagnosticsD. Electron accelerator to 1 GeV:D.1 Acceleration technique (incl. plasma target design)D.2 Focusing & matchingD.3 Driver removal and laser & beam couplingD.4 DiagnosticsE. Electron accelerator to 5 GeV:E.1 Acceleration technique (incl. plasma target design)E.2 Focusing & matchingE.3 Driver removal and laser & beam couplingE.4 Diagnostics7Necessary technical option decisions to make (prelim.)

(based on CDR conceptual design outline & existing project reports)

F. Beam transport & handling for 1GeV beam:

F.1 Capture & matching to FEL line

F.2 Capture & matching to HOPA line

F.3 DiagnosticsF.4 Beam dumpG. Beam transport & handling for 5GeV beam:G.1 Capture & matching to FEL lineG.2 Capture & matching to HOPA lineG.3 Diagnostics

G.4 Beam dump

H. Beam diagnostics & electron-based feedbacks

I. Beam distribution concept

J. FEL & photon facility:J.1 Undulator / FEL designJ.2 DiagnosticsJ.3 Beam dumpK. HOPA science facility:K.1 Applications & user area designK.2 DiagnosticsK.3 Beam dumpSome of these decisions may be simple, as only one or few options are available (e.g. beam dump, driver removal from accelerator stage); others may be more elaborate (e.g. injection technique for electron injector)M. Weikum – 10th Steering Committee Meeting 11.06.2018

Comments and suggestions?

8

DISCUSSION

M. Weikum – 10

th

Steering Committee Meeting 11.06.2018Summary:Decision-making for technical options prioritisation by Steering Committee in Liverpool Collaboration Week (4-6 July 2018) with proposals from EuPRAXIA communityDecisions based on scoring system + explanations into three categories: 1) baseline, 2) development path, 3) mitigation / backup solutionDifferent sets of pre-defined rating scales for each criterionTechnical option decisions for each main component of the conceptual design, although some may not require complicated prioritisation process

9

2. Proposals for criteria and weighting

M. Weikum – 10

th

Steering Committee Meeting 11.06.2018

10

Proposals for criteria and weighting

Insert author and occasion

Criteria

Weightings:

Proposal No. 1Proposal No. 2Proposal No. 3Proposal No.4**1. Technical readiness level today

30High3

2. Technical readiness level in 5 years20

0Low103. Innovation and technical disruptiveness70Low64. Technical performance (based on simulations / experiments)1320*85. FEL performance in nm range (approx. 1-10nm) (based on S2E simulations)610High4

6. FEL performance in sub-nm range (based on S2E simulations)610Combine with 5.3

7. Machine performance for HEP applications210Low

3

8. Machine performance for other non-FEL applications (incl. compact radiation sources, medical imaging, positrons)

1

10Combine with 7.49. New parameter reach beyond conventional technology50*610. Future technology / performance reach and impact20Combine with 3.811. Flexibility and tuning capabilities35Low1012. Upgradability150Low913. Cost1515High514. Size220High7Four proposals received; more general comments following on next page...

11

Proposals for criteria and weighting

More general comments (from one or more proposals):

The number of criteria should be decreased / some criteria combined.

The following additional criteria should be included:

* = criteria 4. and 9. (on technical performance and performance beyond conventional accelerators) should be clarified better or removed.

** Proposal No. 4 provided explanations regarding each weighting choice, which are listed on the next page.

Maintainability / expected frequency & duration of scheduled maintenance stops and their impact on duty cycle

Critical components procurement (e.g. dependence on a single supplier / non-EU suppliers)Potential for creation of jobs Potential for technical outreach to emerging nations Operational easeM. Weikum – 10th Steering Committee Meeting 11.06.2018

Criterion

Weighting (out of 100)

Comment / Explanation

1. Technical readiness level today

3

Today’s TRL is marginally relevant for projected construction in 5

yrs

2. Technical readiness level in 5 years

10Assuming construction in 5 yrs, this parameter becomes crucial3. Innovation and technical disruptiveness6Components should primarily be reliable. Disruptiveness may be incompatible with high TRL

4. Technical performance (based on simulations / experiments)8

Performance of components is important especially against required specs

5. FEL performance in nm range (approx. 1-10nm) (based on S2E simulations)

4

Main objective is to demonstrate viability of plasma acceleration for FEL operation, not performance.

6. FEL performance in sub-nm range (based on S2E simulations)3Main objective is to demonstrate viability of plasma acceleration for FEL operation, not performance. 7. Machine performance for HEP applications3Main objective is to demonstrate viability of plasma acceleration for FEL. Performance on other applications is not important. 8. Machine performance for other non-FEL applications (incl. compact radiation sources, medical imaging, positrons)4Not relevant if focusing on FEL. Also avoid competition/overlap with other facilities (ELI). 9. New parameter reach beyond conventional technology6This is potentially relevant, but should not be overemphasized before achieving basic FEL operation. 10. Future technology / performance reach and impact8This may be important for industry involvement. 11. Flexibility and tuning capabilities10Components must be capable of enabling changes / implementation of new models. 12. Upgradability9Always a pro for components in view of future enhancements. 13. Cost5Would be appropriate to distinguish between construction and running costs. However, should not be a issue in view of the first demonstration of FEL with a plasma accelerator. 14. Size7Given the public statements of our community on potential compactness of plasma acceleration, size criterion should be relevant. 15. Critical components procurement (e.g. Dependence on single supplier / non EU suppliers) (proposed by No. 4) 7

This criterion has been added to account of aspects that are relevant for components selection

16. Expected frequency / duration of scheduled maintenance stops - impact on duty cycle (proposed by No. 4)

7

This criterion has been added to account of aspects that are relevant for components selection

12

Proposals for criteria and weighting

Explanations for proposal No. 4:

M. Weikum – 10

th

Steering Committee Meeting 11.06.2018

13

DISCUSSION

M. Weikum – 10

th

Steering Committee Meeting 11.06.2018

Three main questions to answer:Which criteria should be used for the technical options assessment?Which of these are more important?What weighting should be given to each criterion?