Automatic Generation of the Radiation Level Weekly Reports Update 18 Oliver Stein (EN-EA, University of Hamburg) 22. MCWG meeting

Idea: Ease recurring analysis Automatic data retrieval with python scripts (swan) Integrated intensity calculations WORKING BLM data work in progress Intensity Calculations O. Stein Local DB Time range Variables Analysis Toolbox LHC LDB/MDB Data retrieval Analysis Script Timber Report Data retrieval Analysis Analysis Script BLM data C. Xu/O. Stein 22. MCWG meeting

Data retrieval LDB with PyTimber PyTimber included in swan. Select: Time range and variables Module working! Variables: Beam intensities (B1/B2 BCTs) Beam modes Fill numbers Number of bunches Luminosity Beam energy Beta* (NEW) Batch retrieval possible: Time for data of 1 Month: 15 min https://gitlab.cern.ch/mcwg/lhc_timber_data_retrieval.git 22. MCWG meeting

Integrated intensities calculations Output: .csv-file listing the integrated beam intensities per fill. Integrated intensities toatal/beam mode Number of bunches Losses total/beam mode (#,%) Luminosities Beta* Timing information and flags (low intensity, negative intensity,..) for each mode and beam are provided. Taking different beam modes into account (other modes can be included) Flat Top, Squeeze, Adjust, Stable Beams 22. MCWG meeting

Validation of the python script by comparison with old scripts and recalculations with Mathematica Validation data set: Fills fro, August and September 2015 Filter for: High energy fills (fill@6.5TeV) Fills in Flat Top mode Validation set ~80 fills 22. MCWG meeting

Validation of the python script by comparison with old scripts and recalculations with Mathematica Validation by recalculating the data with Mathematica. Initial intensity: perfect Losses: ±10% Cut: remove outlayers ±3σ Calculated intensities: ratio > 1  python larger integrals Python scripts negative intensities are neglected! Different integration methods. (np.trapz vs. NIntegrate) 22. MCWG meeting

Validation of the python script by comparison with old scripts and recalculations with Mathematica Validation with recalculating the data with Mathematica. Old script takes the maximum intensity. New python script takes the intensity at Flat Top start. IFTstart<Imax Wide spread in the loss ratios. New script only positive losses are taken into account. 22. MCWG meeting

Validation of the python script by comparison with old scripts and recalculations with Mathematica New script takes only data from Flat Top till dump into account. New script analysis Dump 22. MCWG meeting

Conclusion and Next steps New script: Comparison with Mathematica GOOD Integrated intensities show spread due different integration methods. Comparison with old scripts OK Different data analysis algorithms Old script no integrated intensity calculations Next steps: Cleaning the code and adding comments (in progress) Creating a toolbox for providing easy to use analysis modules (next weeks). Combine BLM data analysis and the intensity calculations (next months) 22. MCWG meeting

Thank you! 21. MCWG meeting

Short report from SLAWG SPS Losses and Activation Working Group meetings Oliver Stein (EN-EA, University of Hamburg) 22. MCWG meeting

Scaling for 2017 NA proton request for cool-down times and dose For Scaling dose rates are needed(normalisation). PMIU and RP survey give different normalised dose rates @LSS2. 2016 better than 2015 (2016 up to a factor 2 better than 2015, RP) Is RP survey at 2015 end of the year influenced by ion run? No. (RP) Reason for discrepancy still under discussion. Different loss pattern in 2015 and 2014 Normalisation (extracted protons/minute) needs to be checked Scaling p.o.t. for 2017 Injector schedule is still in approval phase. Estimated intensity 1.0e19 (136d of operation, 5.3e17 p.o.t/week) About 10%fewer p.o.t. as 2015 In contact with Matthew Fraser for further discussion on the scaling. 22. MCWG meeting

Material alternatives to limit activation of ZS (Septum) Discussion on different Materials and their global radiation hazard and waste hazard calculation for 20 years of operation. Tank and anode support are the bulk of the mass. Favorable material: Aluminum (alloy important for waste hazard calc.) Al tanks not tested yet. Alternative: Titan better than stainless steel. 22. MCWG meeting

Orthogonal bumps at the ZS Using bumps to realign the beam with the septa anode  Alignment time reduction: from 10 to ~2 days and better resolution Theoretical studies are ongoing. MD proposals are in preparation. Machine protection: Limits on the orbit corrections needed. Simulations (MADX) are ongoing for calculating the acceptance at the septa magnets. Extraction channel acceptance 22. MCWG meeting