mpscwg 12/12/2007 1 operational scenario of the blm system 4/?
Post on 18-Dec-2015
218 views
TRANSCRIPT
MPSCWG 12/12/2007 2
Addressed questions
1. Strategy for operation of the BLM system
2. Operation with < 4000 channels available?
3. Mobile BLM?
4. Tests with beam?
MPSCWG 12/12/2007 3
Summary of previous discussions
For settings generation, BLM are grouped in families
Via an expert application, a thresholds table is generated by family and stored in ORACLE database (family_info table).
This table and the monitor_info table are used to derived the MASTER table, within the Database (SQL request)
The MASTER tables (one per crate) is protected and set to a so-called ”max safe value” of the different equipment (energy and integration dependant ).
Inside the database, an APLLIED table is derived from the same family_info and monitor_info tables AND multiplying by a factor F, 0<F≤1.
Internal check within ORACLE: APPLIED table ≤ MASTER table
Present implementation, there is one F per family
MPSCWG 12/12/2007 4
Proposed values for the different tables
Element Proposed “Max safe level”
Master Table
Applied table
Maskable/ unmaskable
Number of monitors
MQ, MB Safe beam flag
Max safe value
Quench level
Maskable 2160
LSS quad Safe beam flag
Max safe value
Quench level
Unmaskable
360
DS quad Safe beam flag
Max safe value
Quench level
Unmaskable
480
TCP,TCS%, TDI, TCH, TCLP,TCLI,TCDQ,…
?? Max safe value
Damage level
Maskable ~330
MQW, MBW
Safe beam flag
Max safe value
Damage level
Maskable 60
MSI, MSD Safe beam flag
Max safe value
Damage level
Unmaskable
24+60
MBR% Safe beam flag
Max safe value
Quench level
Unmaskable
MPSCWG 12/12/2007 5
Element Damage level
Master Table
Applied table
Maskable/ unmaskable
Number of monitors
MKD, MKB Safe beam flag
Damage level
Damage level
Unmaskable
24
MBX Safe beam flag
Damage level
Quench level
Unmaskable
4
TAN,TAS ? Damage level
Damage level
Maskable 8
XRP ? Damage level
Unmaskable
9
BCM ? Damage level
Unmaskable
BPMSW ? Damage level
Maskable 8
MPSCWG 12/12/2007 6
Naming convention
Official name (i.e the layout one) : refer to the location in the cell, no indication of the beam, need to be change if one monitor in added, and BLMQI.A7L8 is attached to Q6!!
The expert name to identify the location:
BLMQI.6R7.B1E3_MQTLHBLM location:
• Q for on a quad
• E for other location
• D for the dump line
BLM type:
• I for IC
• S for SEM
Cell and sector position
Beam 1 or beam 2 observed
Transverse position:
• E for external
• I for internal
• T/B for top bottom
Position on the element:
• 1 for entrance
• 2 or 2x for inside
• 3 for exit
Observed element:
• TCT, …
• MSI
•….
MPSCWG 12/12/2007 7
Nr Description MTF query (WHERE EXPERT NAME LIKE ...) cell location No of Magnet
BLMs Type
1 Arc monitor 1 on B1 BLMQI.(12-34)%B1.%1_MQ Q12-34 IR 1/2/3/4/5/6/7/8 360 MQ
Problem: eg. BLMQI.11L6.B1E1_MQ
2 Arc monitor 2 on B1 BLMQI.%.B1.%2_MQ 360 MQ
...22 rows foreach cell?
3 Arc monitor 3 on B1 BLMQI.%.B1.%3_MQ 360 MQ
4 Arc monitor 1 on B2 BLMQI.%.B2.%1_MQ 360 MQ
5 Arc monitor 2 on B2 BLMQI.%.B2.%2_MQ 360 MQ
6 Arc monitor 3 on B2 BLMQI.%.B2.%3_MQ 360 MQ
7 Cell 11 BLMQI.11%.B1.%1_MQ Q11 IR 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 16MQ
8 BLMQI.11%.B1.%2_MQ 16MQ
9 BLMQI.11%.B1.%3_MQ 16MQ
10 BLMQI.11%.B2.%1_MQ 16MQ
11 BLMQI.11%.B2.%2_MQ 16MQ
12 BLMQI.11%.B2.%3_MQ 16MQ
13Dispersion suppressor (BLMQI.8%(1,2,4,5,6,8)B1.%1_MQML) or Q8 Q9 Q10 IR 1/2/4/5/6/8 36MQML
(BLMQI.9%(1,2,4,5,6,8)B1%1_MQM) or MQM
(BLMQI.10%(1,2,4,5,6,8)B1.%1_MQML) MQML
Probably: (BLMQI.8%B1.%1_MQML) or
Cell 9 is different... can be easier? (BLMQI.9%B1.%1_MQM) or
(BLMQI.10%B1.%1_MQML)
14Dispersion suppressor BLMQI.8%(1,2,4,5,6,8)B1.%2_MQML or Q8 Q9 Q10 IR 1/2/4/5/6/8 36MQML
BLMQI.9%(1,2,4,5,6,8)B1.%2_MQM or MQML
BLMQI.10%(1,2,4,5,6,8)B1.%2_MQML MQML
15Dispersion suppressor BLMQI.(8,10)%(1,2,4,5,6,8)B1.%3_MQML or Q8 Q9 Q10 IR 1/2/4/5/6/8 36MQML
BLMQI.9%(1,2,4,5,6,8)B1.%3_MQM
16Dispersion suppressor BLMQI.(8,10)%(1,2,4,5,6,8)B2.%1_MQML or Q8 Q9 Q10 IR 1/2/4/5/6/8 36MQML
BLMQI.9%(1,2,4,5,6,8)B2.%1_MQM
17Dispersion suppressor BLMQI.(8,10)%(1,2,4,5,6,8)B2.%2_MQML or Q8 Q9 Q10 IR 1/2/4/5/6/8 36MQML
BLMQI.9%(1,2,4,5,6,8)B2.%2_MQM
18Dispersion suppressor BLMQI.(8,10)%(1,2,4,5,6,8)B2.%3_MQML or Q8 Q9 Q10 IR 1/2/4/5/6/8 36MQML
IP3,7 cell 8,10: BLMQI.9%(1,2,4,5,6,8)B2.%3_MQM
19 BLMQI.8%3.B1.%1_MQ or Q8 Q10 IR 3/7 8 MQ
BLMQI.8%7.B1.%1_MQ or
BLMQI.10%3.B1.%1_MQ or
MPSCWG 12/12/2007 8
Pending questions
Which value for the “damage level”: “Safe beam flag” for cold element?
With this strategy, MASTER table is below the damage level (factor 320 to 1000 between damage level and quench level according to the beam energy, but the same constant is used)
too much conservative?
Thresholds are defined by families:
-> There is no “general” family for region like DS, injection…-> Do we need to define OP family? How (already in LSA, in TRIM)?
It is possible to copy the MASTER Table and keep it in the flash memory of the BLETC.
-> We have to ask for this implementation?-> We can read it back and compare with DB?-> Do we push to get also the internal comparison?
MPSCWG 12/12/2007 9
Status of the software
Expert application for thresholds generation exists (ROOT scripts) and is used to fill the DB. (expert to LSA?)
Database : Work in progress, structure defined, prototype exists with some 10 families, still some discussions about history of changes
TRIM for operation : Work in progress
External tables comparison (MCS extension): to be done, but no major problem
MPSCWG 12/12/2007 10
12 running sums (40 μs to 84 s) to cover the loss duration and 32 energy levels used for filling different buffers:
logging: at 1 Hz, max loss rate in each running sums over the last second + corresponding quench levels + error and status from tests
Post-Mortem : the last 1.7 s with a 40 μs sample rate (43690 values) + the last 2 min of the logging data + thresholds and masking tables + system status info
XPOC : possible to get up to 32000 values per channel for the chosen running sum (need to be specified by LBDS)
Collimation: on request, 32 consecutive sums of 2,54 ms
Study Data: can be triggered by a timing event (to de detailed)
BLM system : signals available
MPSCWG 12/12/2007 11
Strategy : remarks/questions
The masking is done at the CIBU level: you mask all the channels connected at the same time!
-> Is it acceptable from machine protection point of view?
For the pair SEM-IC, interlock on the SEM?-> OK for SEM for collimators, but for MSD, MKD…?
The maskable/unmaskable status can be defined only at the BLM level, without reconfiguring the BIS?
What about reconfiguration of the BIS in case of disconnecting or changing the masking status at the BLM level?
MPSCWG 12/12/2007 12
2. Operation with < 4000 channels? (1/2)
Reliability of the BLM system:
G. Guaglio Ph-D thesis
Designed to be SIL 3 level : redundancy in the electronics when necessary, experience with the SPS…
acquire statistic with the existing system on SPS and LHC one as soon as available (150 days of running for the moment)
The new software part need to be included in this study
MPSCWG 12/12/2007 13
2. Operation with < 4000 channels? (2/2)
staged approach:
how much protection is needed or how much can we relax on it during commissioning with hope to gain operational efficiency?
The system need to be fully operational for phase A.5
Minimum system for each phase can/should be defined (MPSCWG)
Possibility to change status of channel via the same soft as for the Thresholds
masking helps for wrong evaluation of the threshold
possibility to change at the BLM level the maskable/unmaskable status (what about reconfiguration of the BIS?)
MPSCWG 12/12/2007 14
How many channels we can lose?
For commissioning: Assumption: The loss can be seen by another monitor so we can lose locally up to 2 out of 3 on the quad according to the margin to damage level taken (the famous C factor) for the arcs Do we have to go through the different loss patterns? (accidental case?)
What about : LSS => all needed MSI,MKD, MSD.. => ?? collimators => all needed
MPSCWG 12/12/2007 15
Mobile BLMs?Mobile BLM
Same Ionisation Chambersuse the spare channels per card : 2 in the arcs at each quad, a bit more complicated in the LSS because of more elements.electronics is commissioned as for connected channelAll the free channels/cards… will be predefined to allow their display without touching the threshold tablesNeed access to connect the extra chambersCan cover a half-cell every 3-m if 2 chambers per channelNo dump thresholds
For which use:
He leak detection: is it enough? Need some evaluation of the expected pressure dump to evaluate the signalIn the LSS?
MPSCWG 12/12/2007 16
Simulation : typical result
z (cm)
Maximum of the shower ~ 1m after impacting point in material
increase of the signal in magnet free locations
Amplitude/length of the pressure bump?
MPSCWG 12/12/2007 17
4. BLM tests
Functional test of full acquisition chain with Radioactive Source
The procedure for this test will be described in a dedicated document made in collaboration with TIS. The purpose is to create a signal on the chamber with the RA source and check its presence in the corresponding DAB card channels. Time estimation : 0.5 to 1 hour per front-end station (8 BLMs)
Provoked magnet quenchpossibility to check steady state losses quench limit with circulating beam (part of the MPS commissioning)possibility to check fast losses quench behavior if sector test
What do we lose if we cannot do the tests?
MPSCWG 12/12/2007 18
Restricted tests?
Testing only a given set of BLMs with the radioactive source?
Motivation of the quench test:Verification of the correlation between energy deposition in the coil (= quench level) and BLM signal (= thresholds)Verify or establish „real-life“ quench levelsVerify simulated BLM signal and loss patterns
=> Accurately known quench levels will increase operational efficiency!
MPSCWG 12/12/2007 19
Conclusion
GO for implementation?
Acquire statistics on the reliability of the connections and the applications during the coming dry runs
Evaluate the safety of the solution in March and if not satisfactory, close the HW switch!
Strategy to run with non-working channels? Action for the MPWG?