New control system – pilot project SE1

1. New control system – pilot project SE1 S. Poulsen ST-EL-CO STTC November 12th, 2002

2. Overview • Introduction • Problem • Project • Result • Conclusions • Future

3. Introduction • Overview • Present pilot project LHC 1 • Make general conclusions • Propose future activities

4. Situation 1999 LHC 1 • Substation controlled with CERN Technology (ST and SL divisions) • MICENE interface to most equipment • Data acquisition developed at CERN in 80s • Some equipment with modern protection • LEP-wide concept and technology for electrical equipment and control

5. Problems in 1999 • CERN LEP technology obsolete and discontinued • Repairs and configuration changes difficult or impossible • Control experts close to retirement • Complicated integration with new industrial electrical SCADA system • Performance degrading • Conclusion : Future uncertain !

6. Proposal • Pilot project using industrial technology • Proposal selected from supplier of SCADA system for integration and cost reason • Constraints • No development of hardware • No major re-cabling of electrical equipment • Reuse of MICENE interconnection chassis’

7. Technical solution (in blue)

8. Project Documentation • Before: Project note issued • Define scope and boundaries • Define hardware requirements • Define functionality • Define practical implementation issues • After: Project conclusion issued • Status report and major conclusions

9. Lessons learnt • Modification of switchboards for measurement time consuming and impractical • Interconnection cables with equipment critical • Chassis re-cabling difficult • Co-ordination between CERN and supplier difficult during installation

10. Improvements for future ! • Concentrate power measurements in rack or in one device per switchboard (LV) • Include critical interconnection cables in supply • Minimise interconnection chassis re-cabling • Prepare installation completely before intervention of supplier

11. Additional results • Local visualization of substation status in synoptic • Local logging of events (no risk of communication network outage) • Local visualization of measurements for MV and some LV via dedicated power measurement modules

12. Long-term performance • Reliability satisfactory guarantee period • Problems solved quickly • Regular new software versions installed by supplier • No major maintenance by CERN except restarting the system occasionally

13. General Architecture based on pilot

14. Perspectives LHC 1–2002/2003End of prototype • New cryogenics substation with modern protection to be integrated • New switchboard in SEM11 with modern protection (no extra controls hardware) • Reconfiguration of control system offered at CHF 4000 (foreseen in frame contract !) • Recycling of original data acquisition hardware installed for prototype

15. Related activities initiated after pilot • On-going control renovation program over 5 years • Done: Complete upgrade in LHC 1, LHC 4, LHC 5, LHC 6, LHC 8, BE, BE9, SM18, ME9 (LHC 1 to be redone) • Done: Partial upgrade in BA1, BA2, BA3, BA4, BA5, BA6, BA7 but MICENEs not yet replaced (BA4 scheduled for 2003) • Not Done:Underground will follow equipment installation and communication infrastructure, LHC 2, (3 and 7)

16. Conclusions 1Disadvantages of approach • Limited control over contractors staff, schedule, etc. • Less flexibility (contractual terms) • Less reactivity (contract changes difficult !) • Specific software difficult to debug off-site • Difficult to have special functionalities • Quality control important (ISO not sufficient…) • Risks : Future of supplier ? Suppliers strategy ? CERN strategy ? The technology ? The LHC requirements ? In 10 years ? Integration with CERN systems ?

17. Conclusions 1Advantages of approach • Results based ! • Responsibility of problems clear ! • Reliability satisfactory • Industrial hardware cost effective • Changes are possible (if paid…) • Knowledge of system not “owned” by CERN personnel • Technology not CERN specific (training fast and cost effective)

18. Main conclusions of pilot • Industrial control equipment can be used at CERN • Work can be formed by small team with help of contractors and limited industrial support • Contractors can assist execution with simple well-defined tasks but not tasks that need experience and management of complexity • In the future choices have to be made about priorities. We cannot control all equipment and we have to decide where to concentrate !

19. Future activities - 1 • Training • Electrical operation personnel and operators • Training investment proportional to investment in system • More important with industrial systems since knowledge comes from outside firm and development is separated from CERN • Best way of learning is “doing”

20. Future activities - 2 • Energy management • SEPAMs and power measurement modules provide information about power consumption on a feeder basis down to LV switchboards • Information presented in Web pages or customised energy reports • Use information for forecasting, monitoring and maybe more efficient operation

21. Future activities - 3 • Integration of electrical control in ST infrastructure • Done: Transmission of signals for real-time monitoring via TDS • To do: Exchange of information for off-line analysis (data logging and events). Data format and structure to be discussed • Probably other issues for discussion in CSWG

22. Thank you ! • Hope to have answered your questions ? • Any more questions now or later ? • S. Poulsen (contract manager) • J.-C. Gallois (energy and installation) • G. Burdet (field buses, PLCs and software)