1 / 23

ESS accelerator RAMI analysis : approach and methodology

ESS accelerator RAMI analysis : approach and methodology. Enric Bargalló ESS accelerator reliability expert. www.europeanspallationsource.se November 12, 2013. Outline. Introduction RAMI approach for ESS Methodology Availability modeling: example of IFMIF

adele
Download Presentation

ESS accelerator RAMI analysis : approach and methodology

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. ESS accelerator RAMI analysis:approach and methodology Enric Bargalló ESS accelerator reliability expert www.europeanspallationsource.se November 12, 2013

  2. Outline • Introduction • RAMI approach for ESS • Methodology • Availability modeling: example of IFMIF • Reliability information and comparison with ESS requirements

  3. Introduction

  4. ESS accelerator • Average beam power 5.0 MW, peak power 125 MW • Beam energy 2.0 GeV, intensity 62.5 mA • Pulse length 2.86 ms, repetition 14 Hz, 4% duty factor

  5. Requirements and definitions • Accelerator requirements: • Reliability of 95.5% in 1h period • Availability of 95% for the scheduled operation • It will be considered failed when the beam is less than 50% of the nominal power for more than one minute. However, a high degradation of the power will not be acceptable for long periods of time.

  6. Operation and maintenance • Initial operations phase from 2019 to 2026 • After 2026, normal operation: • Neutron production 200 days/year • Proton beam on target 230 days/year • 2 long scheduled maintenance periods per year • 10 weeks in summer • 6 weeks in winter

  7. RAMI approach

  8. RAMI approach • RAMI studies will focus mainly on • Estimate the accomplishment of the requirements • Guide the design to obtain high RAMI performances • Other outputs • Maintenance plans • Manpower • Logistics and spares • Estimation of mean parameters of the beam • …

  9. Availability estimation • Requirements definition • XFWG Reliability and Availability requirements document • RAMI Specifications document for the accelerator • Requirements allocation among the different systems • Top-down allocation? Experiences in other facilities? Experts? • Modeling (bottom-up) • Individual models for each system (estimate parameters for systems) • Global model (estimate parameters for the accelerator) • Analyze the results, compare them with the requirements and propose changes in design, in requirements definitions or in the allocation if necessary.

  10. Reliability estimation • Requirements definition • Requirements allocation among the different systems • Top-down allocation. Experiences in other facilities? Experts? • Reliability estimation (bottom-up?) • Failures coming from Availability analysis • Trips from other facilities and extrapolation? • Trips from similar components and systems and extrapolation? • Analyze the results, compare them with the requirements and propose changes in design, in requirements definitions or in the allocation if necessary.

  11. To obtain high RAMI performances • Specific RAMI models to compare different designs or configurations • RAMI guidelines (derating, redundancies, modularity, standardization…) • Improve Maintainability • Improve Reliability • Improve Inspectability • Other analyses (e.g. logistics, time dependencies…)

  12. Methodology

  13. ESS requirements Users Stakeholders Allocation Experiences in other facilities or experts opinion Top-down Requirements allocation and definition Accelerator requirements Allocation Previous analyses Systems requirements Global model Redefine requirements Number of stops and durations Comparison with other facilities Individual models Reallocate requirements Functions Models and RAMI parameters estimation Failures Trips Bottom-up Change design Systems and components Components’ requirements Trips in similar components Trips in similar systems Operations information Reliability data Outcomes Reliability Availability Related activities Beam turn-on sequence Operational plans Maintenance plans PBS ILS Risk analysis FMECA FA MPS Beam physics Safety

  14. Current and future work • Requirements allocation • Systems, subsystems and components structure • Functions definition and structure for RAMI • Failure acceptance and beam degradation • Choose software and models to be done • Start gathering design information • Gather reliability data and experiences from other facilities

  15. Availability modeling: IFMIF example

  16. Failure acceptance and beam degradation

  17. Fault tree analysis RiskSpectrum

  18. Availability simulation: AvailSim

  19. AvailSim Results

  20. Reliability data and comparison with ESS requirements

  21. Reliability data from other facilities

  22. ESS vs. SNS • ESS • R=95% in 1h means MTBF=20h • From SNS • Without considering trips with durations less than one minute, MTBF is between 1h and 3h • ESS can’t reconfigure locally (like ADS), we must reconfigure all cavities downstream the failed one. • Between 20 min and 40 min minimum time to reconfigure • Not valid for beam trips

  23. Questions or comments?

More Related