1 Debriefing HCERES 2016/1/18-20 Debriefing HCERES 13 juin 2016 LAEPT / Plasmas.

Présentation au sujet: "1 Debriefing HCERES 2016/1/18-20 Debriefing HCERES 13 juin 2016 LAEPT / Plasmas."— Transcription de la présentation:

1 1 Debriefing HCERES 2016/1/18-20 Debriefing HCERES 13 juin 2016 LAEPT / Plasmas

2 2 Debriefing HCERES 2016/1/18-20 LAEPT, Laboratoire Arc Electrique et Plasmas Thermiques, EA 4646, UBP-UDA Sommaire « Short appreciations of the detailed assessments » du rapport HCERES « Conclusion and recommendations » du rapport HCERES Décryptage des « appreciations and recommendations » Pistes dégagées pour le projet scientifique du pôle

3 3 Debriefing HCERES 2016/1/18-20 LAEPT, Laboratoire Arc Electrique et Plasmas Thermiques, EA 4646, UBP-UDA Pôle 6 – Plasmas « Short appreciations of the detailed assessments » du rapport HCERES 1/2 Assessment of scientific quality and outputs Short appreciation on this criterion “The level of scientific output and quality is very good for a small team. The team covers a limited number of axes of investigation but has original and advanced skills in specific aspects such as the calculation of basic properties of thermal plasmas, the experiments on electrode phenomena and the study of fuses and safety systems in electrical networks.” Assessment of the team academic reputation and appeal Short appreciation on this criterion “The team has a very good national reputation, which is put in evidence by several academic collaborations, by the active participation in the Association Arc Électrique and by the recent organisation of the National Conference on Electric Arcs (CAEXII, Clermont, 2015).” Assessment of the team interaction with the social, economic and cultural environment Short appreciation on this criterion “Given its size, the team has an excellent interaction with the national environment: 1 international patent; more than one new industrial grant per year, some of these grants with big companies; recent success of a project supported by two important structures (pôle de compétitivité and European Pôle de la Céramique).” Assessment of the team organisation and life Short appreciation on this criterion “The organisation of the team is excellent.”

4 4 Debriefing HCERES 2016/1/18-20 LAEPT, Laboratoire Arc Electrique et Plasmas Thermiques, EA 4646, UBP-UDA Pôle 6 – Plasmas « Short appreciations of the detailed assessments » du rapport HCERES 2/2 Assessment of the team involvement in training through research Short appreciation on this criterion “The duration of the theses is too long. But the guidance and supervision of the PhD students are very good. The other items for this criterion are rather normal.” Assessment of the strategy and the five-year plan Short appreciation on this criterion “The project is very pertinent, probably too ambitious. A very positive point is the effort proposed for a good integration in the research unit.”

5 5 Debriefing HCERES 2016/1/18-20 LAEPT, Laboratoire Arc Electrique et Plasmas Thermiques, EA 4646, UBP-UDA Pôle 6 – Plasmas « Conclusion and recommendations » du rapport HCERES 1/1 ■ Strengths and opportunities: « The team has very good scientific competences in a narrow domain with fast reactivity to industrial problems, leading to fruitful collaborations. The experimental setups are efficient and rather important. There are opportunities to develop new collaborations within the future laboratory. » ■ Weaknesses and threats: « The size of the team is rather small, with a critical number of permanent professors. The teaching load is high in general, especially within the IUT structure which leaves even less freedom for research. The international reputation and appeal is quite limited. » ■ Recommendations: « The international visibility and reputation should be improved, which requires voluntary efforts. For this objective, an informal international collaborative network should be created. There are several means to develop this network: effective collaboration on particular points; attendance at the most important conferences in the domain with formal or informal discussions; efforts to be members of committees of international conferences; redaction of topical reviews… The integration to LPC offers more opportunities than threats. Synergy actions have been discussed but they have to be promoted by the direction of the research unit. With the help of the director of the lab, some discussions with INSIS would be favourable for a better recognition of this team by CNRS in the future. The size of the group and the technical support should be maintained in the new structure. »

6 6 Debriefing HCERES 2016/1/18-20 LAEPT, Laboratoire Arc Electrique et Plasmas Thermiques, EA 4646, UBP-UDA Pôle 6 – Plasmas Décryptage des « appreciations and recommendations » 1/2 1)Durée des thèses : 36 mois pour CIFRE (ANRT) et  40 à 46 mois pour les autres → 7 thèses pendant la période : 3 bourses étrangères (Gabon, Algérie, Belgique) ; 1 bourse ED SPI (poste de PRAG) ; 2 ED SF ; 1 CIFRE → Adéquation du modèle de la thèse avec les attentes actuelles ? (motivations, intérêt pour la thèse des candidats recrutés, insertion professionnelle : pas de recrutement universitaire, modules chonophages) → Au niveau laboratoire, ED : instaurer la rédaction de rapports intermédiaires (semestriels, annuels a minima) ? 2)Rayonnement international → Nécessité d’un budget « conférences internationales », « séjours » au sein des laboratoires partenaires (Russie, Portugal, Australie, Grèce) pour les collaborations justifiées par des publications communes, « stages » futurs PhD étrangers → Sujets/Contacts CEA, ESA/CNES en stand-by suite à la réorganisation du service, reprise ? → Convention avec TEI of Piraeus, émarger à un projet Européen ? 3)Maintien des ressources → Humaine, matérielle, financière, structurelle, salles de manip « The experimental setups are efficient and rather important », m² de stockage et bureaux collègues …?! LPC IP pas de nouvelles ?! → Réactivité en Valorisation avec l’Industrie → Qualité de la recherche, des publications, des thèses, des collaborations académiques 4)Reconnaissance auprès de l’INSIS CNRS 5)Discuter les priorités « projet de recherche » pour les 5 prochaines années au sein de la nouvelle structure … en attente …

7 7 Debriefing HCERES 2016/1/18-20 LAEPT, Laboratoire Arc Electrique et Plasmas Thermiques, EA 4646, UBP-UDA Pôle 6 – Plasmas Décryptage des « appreciations and recommendations » 2/2 6)Disparition de la thématique « arc électrique » → Forte représentation industrielle du domaine en Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes : Alstom (General Electric), Areva, Schneider Electric, Mersen, Tennerdis, SuperGrid Institute, … → Contacts électriques : mobilité, sécurité, matériaux … 7)Migration des contrats → UBP vers CNRS ? → EC tous universitaires … 8)Représentation du futur laboratoire → Au département de physique : impact sur les enseignements des collègues → Dans la nouvelle Université (UCA, collegium)

8 8 Debriefing HCERES 2016/1/18-20 LAEPT, Laboratoire Arc Electrique et Plasmas Thermiques, EA 4646, UBP-UDA Pôle 6 – Plasmas Pistes dégagées pour le projet scientifique du pôle 1/1 « The project seems very good and consistent, being built on three components: the scientific competences of the team; the new technological problems leading to new axes of investigation; the integration in the future laboratory finding possible interesting opportunities and collaborations. Concerning fundamental research, the highest originality (and at the same time the most risky) brings on the development of two-temperature plasma works and tools (calculation of transport and radiation properties, associated diagnostic) and the magnetohydrodynamics modelling. The team should develop collaborations with other teams in France in these fundamental areas where there is no confidentiality conflict. The projects on the Stark effect are promising, provided that the team will perform experiments and that the basic calculations will be developed by other groups or laboratories. Experimental study of the fast transient phenomena in arc (or pre-arc) discharges is also original. From the technological point of view the choice of the problems of High-Voltage Direct Current and of electrical safety are judicious and should attract industrial partners. Finally, we must note and encourage the special efforts made by the team to propose collaborations with other groups of the new laboratory. They not only concern the pooling of equipment and experimental systems, but also scientific axes of investigation such as the resolution of the Boltzmann equations. The project has no time line and is probably too large for a 5-year plan. » → Projet scientifique à discuter avec le futur Directeur Pallin !