1 / 27

JCOP Overview

JCOP Overview. JCOP External Review 10 th -12 th March 2003. Overview of presentation. Project Start-up Structure and Reporting Complications Project Scope Project Approach Overview of Activities Potential Issues Summary From my point of view. Project Start-up.

mahon
Download Presentation

JCOP Overview

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. JCOP Overview JCOP External Review 10th-12th March 2003

  2. Overview of presentation • Project Start-up • Structure and Reporting • Complications • Project Scope • Project Approach • Overview of Activities • Potential Issues • Summary • From my point of view

  3. Project Start-up • JCOP was established in January ’98 with David Myers (IT-CO) as Project Leader • Reasons: • Recommendation by inter-divisional / inter-experiment WG • Similar technical requirements • More efficient use of shrinking resources • Collaboration between five equal partners - the four LHC experiments and IT-CO (later also EP-ESS) • Mandate: “To develop a common Framework and components for detector control of the LHC experiments and to define the required long-term support.“ • Mandate and reporting structures updated in February 2000 • David Myers replaced by Wayne Salter as Project Leader in January 2001

  4. What are the entities involved?

  5. JCOP Steering Group (SG) • Responsible for addressing strategic and resource issues and for overseeing the progress of the project • Meetings held 3-4 times per year • Report by Project Leader on the status of activities • Other issues of concern at the time • Membership: • Experiment Technical, DAQ and Controls Co-ordinators • Representatives of the IT and EP management (DL or DDL) – one acting as Chairman • Group Leaders of support groups (IT-CO/EP-ESS) • Project Leader (secretary) • Experiment GLIMOSs (DSS)

  6. JCOP Executive Board (EB) • Responsible for the overseeing the day-to-day running of the project • Establishing the Programme Plan, which defines activities, milestones, resource requirements • Approving sub-projects • Defining priorities • Meets bi-weekly • Reports from relevant meetings • Issues of concern at the time • Membership: • Project Leader (Chairman & Secretary) • Experiment Controls Co-ordinators • Group Leaders of support groups (IT-CO/EP-ESS) • Other people invited by the Chairman if appropriate • Steering Group Chairman (ex-officio)

  7. JCOP Project Team • Forum for technical discussions and presentations • Forum for the dissemination of information and the exchange of information and ideas between the experiments • Bi-weekly with published minutes • Participation: • All people involved in controls in the LHC experiments • Members of the support groups • Attendance: • Typically 30-40 people at each meeting • People from other controls domains at CERN

  8. What are the reporting lines?

  9. Steering Board Sub-Projects Sub-Projects Sub-Projects JCOP Structure & Reporting http://itco.web.cern.ch/itco/Projects-Services/JCOP/welcome.html CERN Technical Director Chairman = Project leader Executive Board Technical Work by Project Team

  10. What additional complications were there?

  11. Complications Some complications are inherent with common projects • Different approaches to controls in the experiments Þ initial difficulties in defining the scope and responsibilities (initial Programme Plan) • Initial difficulties in obtaining requirements and milestones • Unclear reporting lines • As well as the change of PL there have been several changes of experiment controls co-ordinators – LHCb (1), ALICE (2), CMS (2) Situation improved with the revised mandate and reporting – particularly the separation of functions

  12. What is the scope of the project?

  13. JCOP Context - I Support Groups SASG Electrical Distribution JCOP Gas WG JCOV Cryogenics/ Magnets LHC Experiments Controls Board

  14. JCOP Context - II Cryo LHC DIP DAQ DSS DCS GAS T.S. CSS T.S. Equipment Expt. Equipment HV, LV, Temperature, Pressure,Gas, Rack/crates, FE Electronics, Sub-detector specific, DAQ Cooling & ventilation Electrical distribution

  15. What is the approach adopted by the project?

  16. JCOP Approach • Decisions made via consensus • Compromise • Involve the experiments as much as possible in the JCOP sub-projects • Commercial solutions wherever possible and beneficial • Limited manpower • Maintenance issues • General purpose and maintainable solutions and components • Global rather than local optimisation • Sufficient to meet need • Sufficient flexibility • Experiments choose which to use and for what

  17. Layer Structure Technologies Custom Commercial Configuration DB, Archives, FSM Storage Log files, etc. Supervision WAN SCADA LAN DIM OPC Process LAN Management Communication Protocols Controller/ Other systems PLC (LHC, Safety, ...) VME PC PLC/UNICOS VME Field Bus Node Node Field Field Buses & Nodes Management Experimental Equipment Sensors/Devices Controls Technologies

  18. Experiment Control System Users Experiment Framework Experiment Sub-detector Teams Control System Framework Experiment Team SCADA/FSM And other tools JCOP Framework Team Framework Design Architecture Working Group DCS Development Process

  19. What are the activities of the project?

  20. Programme Plan - I • Technology Survey (completed) • Axel Daneels and 10 staff from IT-CO and one coopérant from ALICE • 1997-2000 • Development of Supervisory Framework (on-going) • Manuel Gonzalez Berges with 3FTEs from IT-CO • Specific developments done by the experiments • Communications with CERN infrastructure services (on-going) • Participation of Wayne Salter and Mark Beharrell (IT-CO) and Clara Gaspar (LHCb) in the LDIWG to define data exchange mechanism (DIP) • Applications to Interface to CERN Infrastructure (not started) • Dependent on the outcome of the above • Control of Gas Systems (on-going) • Renaud Barillère (IT-CO)/Stefan Haider (EP-TA1) and 2.4 FTEs from IT-CO, 0.5 FTE EP-TA1 and 0.8 FTE from EP-ESS on loan • Gamma Irradiation Facility (on-going) • Mike Clayton of EP-ESS with some fraction of a technical student • Front-End Communications (not started) • For commercial equipment OPC being used as a standard • DIM selected as an intermediate solution for custom equipment • No common requirements for other mechanisms

  21. Programme Plan - II • Detector Safety System • Bruce Flockhart with 2 FTEs from IT-CO • Prototype being developed • Rack Control (on going) • Paul Maley from EP-ESS as part of the common rack project • Crate Control (on going) • Handled as part of the common rack tendering of EP-ESS • Sub-detector Cooling and Ventilation (not started officially) • A number of discussions held to clarify responsibilities • Control of High and Low Voltage (not started officially) • Support provided to CAEN, WIENER and ISEG for the development of OPC servers • Temporary solutions developed by IT-CO while awaiting the above • Vertical Slice (completed) • Sergei Zelepoukine as a Project Associate in IT-CO with support from IT-CO • February - July 2001

  22. Additional Activities • Database Issues • Componentware • Prototypes • ATLAS TRT GCS • CMS B1 GCS • ALICE HMPID • CMS B2 GCS • NA60 GCS • Show Cases and Hands-on Environments • Several equipment labs in IT-CO • SCADA, DSS, OPC, PLCs, Field bus equipment • Tutorials and demos • Test machines and H/W

  23. Use of JCOP Technologies • Used in Fixed Target Experiments • HARP • NA60 • COMPASS • Enable technology to be used in realistic environment • Provides good feedback to development team • Low-level of support required • Showed value of experiment contact persons • Being introduced for LHC experiments

  24. JCOP Workshops • Opportunity to exchange information in a wider audience, both within and between experiments • JCOP I • Understand best practice from ‘current’ experiment • Identify the critical technical issues • JCOP II • Get an update on the experiment controls activities • Discuss technology choices and particularly SCADA • Discuss the future direction • JCOP III • Get an update on the experiment controls activities • Present/demonstrate the available JCOP components and tools • Discuss the future direction and priorities

  25. What concerns are there?

  26. Concerns • Adoption of components by sub-detectors • Small attendance at JCOP III • Major test-beam activities this year • ELMB Support • Developed for/by ATLAS but is being widely used not only in ATLAS • No official S/W support for non-standard SW • Final production planned this year • Long-term maintenance • Availability of resources

  27. Summary • Wide range of activities have been undertaken • Many common components already provided • We will hear more about these during this review and see some of them in demos • Further components are under development • Will be described in other presentations • Provides building blocks for the experiments to construct their control systems • Need to ensure that the sub-detectors gain experience with these components • Long-term maintenance to be addressed

More Related