top of page


The organizational work packages (WP) drive ahead with developing and finalizing legal, financial, organisational and other agreements during the preparatory phase. Detailed technical implementation plans and structures will be worked out in the technical work packages.

WP 1

Coordination & Project Management

Pierluigi Campana (INFN)

Massimo Ferrario (INFN)

Supervise and coordinate EupRAXIA-PP work package tasks to their full completion.

WP 2

Dissemination & Public Relations

Carsten Welsch (INFN/University of Liverpool)

Susanna Bertelli (INFN)

Disseminate the content produced in EuPRAXIA-PP to audiences of interest.

WP 3

Organization & Rules

Arnd Specka (CNRS)
Andrea Ghigo (INFN)

Develop the organizational model of EuPRAXIA to ensure a sound and timely execution of tasks when the Researach Infrastructure will be operational.

WP 4

Financial, Legal Model & Economic Impact

Antonio Falone (INFN)

Develop the financial model of EuPRAXIA as a sustainable research infrastructure providing access to users.

WP 5

User Strategy & Services

Francesco Stellato (University of Rome "Tor Vergata")
Emiliano Principi (ELETTRA)

Define a comprehensive list of services to users and an access policy for those users to be provided with those services.

WP 6

Membership Extension Strategy

Brigitte Cros (CNRS)

Andrea Mostacci (Sapienza,  University of Rome)

Outreach to European and international communities interested in the Technology and User Science.

WP 7

E-Needs & Data Policy

Riccardo Fonseca (IST)
Stefano Pioli (INFN)

Define E-Needs and Data Policy, connect  funding sources and to ongoing integrating projects in EU.

WP 8

Theory & Simulation

Jorge Vieira (IST)
Henri Vincenti (CEA)

Steer the scientific and technical progress on Theory & Simulations of Plasma Accelerator and related application.

WP 9

RF, Magnets & Beamline Components

Sergey Antipov (DESY)
Federico Nguyen (ENEA)

Steer the work on requirements, research and developments for components involving RF equipment, magnets for focusing/correction and beamline components.

WP 10

Plasma Components & Systems

Kevin Cassou (CNRS)
Rob Shalloo (DESY)

Assess the current design of plasma components and related systems and provide a sustainable roadmap to fulfil the EuPRAXIA scientific goals.

WP 11


Gianluca Sarri (University of Belfast)
Enrica Chiadroni (Sapienza,  University of Rome)

Application development. Beamlines and delivery into user areas.

WP 12

Laser Technology & Liaison to Industry

Leonida Gizzi (CNR)
Paul Crump (FBH)

Deliver a technical design for the laser-driver for the 2nd site and strengthen the role of industry to enable the delivery of a robust laser-driver featuring solutions to enable reliable and affordable operation.

WP 13


Alessandro Cianchi (University of Rome "Tor Vergata")
Rasmus Ischebeck (EPFL)

Diagnostics for particle and photon beams. Develop required structures in detail (excellence centers, scientific programs, R&D).

WP 14

Transformative Innovation Paths

Bernhard Hidding (HHU)
Stefan  Karsch (LMU)

Transformative Innovation Paths, e.g. hybrid concepts, novel plasma acceleration schemes, compact undulators.

WP 15

TDR EuPRAXIA @SPARC_LAB (beam-driven plasma)

Cristina Vaccarezza (INFN)
Riccardo Pompili (INFN)

Connects to the implementation project at Frascati, Rome, Italy and preparation of TDR for beam-driven site of EuPRAXIA.

WP 16

TDR EuPRAXIA Site 2 (laser-driven plasma)

Alexander Molodozhentsev (ELI ERIC)
Rajeev Pattathil (STFC)

Finalize the evaluation criteria according to the specifications outlined in the conceptual design report and the criteria defined in the ESFRI application.

Simulation of a plasma wakefield with ALaDyn PIC code. Credit A. Marocchino, INFN-LNF.jpg

Economically attractive alternative to RF -based accelerators

In the long term, EuPRAXIA aims to establish the scientific and technological foundations upon which a new market – and therefore, a new industry – for non-RF-based accelerators could emerge, characterized by a much shorter length and possibly a cost representing only a fraction of what RF-based accelerators cost.

Those new accelerators, because of their reduced cost and size, would clearly constitute an economically attractive alternative to RF-based accelerators

bottom of page