AOB: Adjustments to BLM Thresholds in Light of Run-2 Experience with UFOs B. Auchmann, J. Ghini, L. Grob, A. Lechner, D. Wollmann. 118 th MPP, 9.10.2015.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

DS Quench TEST 2  MOTIVATION and METHOD: 1. Achieve 500kW on beam 1 – TCP7 collimators.(so far 500kW with beam 2 and 235kW over 1s with beam 1 were reached.

Advertisements

LHC Collimation Working Group – 19 December 2011 Modeling and Simulation of Beam Losses during Collimator Alignment (Preliminary Work) G. Valentino With.

LHC Beam Operation CommitteeJune, 14 th UFOs in the LHC Tobias Baer LBOC June, 14 th 2011 Acknowledgements: N. Garrel, B. Goddard, E.B. Holzer, S.

LHC UFO Study Working GroupSeptember 15 th UFOs since TS#4 LHC UFO Study Group Tobias Baer September, 15 th 2011 Acknowledgements: B. Goddard, S.

LHC 15 April :19: UFO event detected by on BLM 15.R8 and beam dump 8:46: P2 cold compressor trip and recovery during morning shift. Access given.

Mariusz Sapinski BI/BL Acknowledgements: 1 Planning of quench tests - QTSWG Latest news concerning planning of quench tests Quench Test Strategy.

LSWG day, Sept. 2, 2014, B. Auchmann for the BLMTWG Collaboration of many teams: OP, RF, BI, Collimation, LIBD, FLUKA, etc. T. Baer, M. Bednarek, G. Bellodi,

An Example Use Case Scenario

MP3 report : W49 (6 slides, 6’) J.Ph Tock for the MP3 team Since oral report last week (24 th of November) 1JPhT – LMC 1st of December 2010.

4 th BLMTWG Meeting, January 13, 2015 by B. Auchmann, A. Bertarelli, R. Bruce, F. Cerutti, B. Dehning, L. Esposito, E.B. Holzer, M. Kalliokoski, A. Lechner,

2 nd BLMTWG meeting, B. Auchmann, O. Picha, with A. Lechner.

Beam-induced Quench Tests of LHC Magnets Beam-induced Quench Tests of LHC Magnets, B.Dehning 1 B. Auchmann, T. Baer, M. Bednarek, G. Bellodi, C. Bracco,

Introduction to availability modelling in ELMAS Arto Niemi.

LER Workshop, CERN, October 11-12, 2006Detector Safety with LER - Henryk Piekarz1 LHC Accelerator Research Program bnl-fnal-lbnl-slac Accelerator & Detector.

1 Interlock logic for LHC injection: intensity limitations Jörg Wenninger AB-OP-SPS Outcome of the join Machine-Experiments Workshop on Machine Protection.

B. Auchmann, O. Picha, Joint CWG/BLMTWG Meeting August

Bus-Bar Quench Studies Summary of Available Calculations LMC Meeting August 5 th 2009 Bus-Bar Quench Studies Summary of Available Calculations LMC Meeting.

Mariusz Sapinski BI/BL Acknowledgements: 1 Planning of quench tests - LMC158 Draft planning of beam induced quench tests at the end of 2013 run LHC Machine.

1 CC & MP - CC10 - CERN Crab LHC J. Wenninger CERN Beams Department for the LHC Machine Protection Panel.

Updates on FLUKA simulations of TCDQ halo loads at IR6 FLUKA team & B. Goddard LHC Collimation Working Group March 5 th, 2007.

LHC-CC Validity Requirements & Tests LHC Crab Cavity Mini Workshop at CERN; 21. August Remarks on using the LHC as a test bed for R&D equipment.

Simulation comparisons to BLM data E.Skordis On behalf of the FLUKA team Tracking for Collimation Workshop 30/10/2015 E. Skordis1.

Eva Barbara Holzer July 16, LHC MPP Eva Barbara Holzer for the BLM team LHC MPP CERN, July 17, 2010 Proposal on Threshold Corrections for RC Filters.

Chamonix 2006, B.Dehning 1 Commissioning of Beam Loss Monitors B. Dehning CERN AB/BDI.

Beam Induced Quench Session 2: quench test at LHC B. Dehning, C. Bracco.

Setting BLM Limits in the Booster The Booster is now delivering all the protons needed by the collider program, and about 40% of the protons needed by.

Simulations and BLM Scaling Studies for the Collimation Quench Test (with protons) A. Mereghetti CWG Meeting, CERN, 22 nd Oct 2015.

CONTENT: Beam characteristics and MP concerns BI configuration Operational settings Collimators Planning Shift breakdown Thanks to: P.Baudrenghien, G.Bellodi,

Summary Session 5 Chamonix 2011, 24. – Session 5: “High Intensity: Present and Future” R. Assmann & S. Redaelli Thanks to Frank Z. for his notes…

LHC machine protection close-out 1 Close-out. LHC machine protection close-out 2 Introduction The problem is obvious: –Magnetic field increase only a.

HL-LHC WP14 2 nd meeting: Intercepting devices and failure cases to be studied Anton Lechner, Jan Uythoven.

2 nd BLMTWG meeting, B. Auchmann, O. Picha, with A. Lechner.

1 st BLMTWG Meeting, , B. Auchmann, O. Picha with help from M. Sapinski, E.B. Holzer, A. Priebe.

AD&I Meeting 23/6/10 Jim Clarke

Use of a Diamond BLM System in the LHC Ring

2007 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium (NSS)

BEAM LOSS MONITORING SYSTEM

Tracking simulations of protons quench test

Addressed questions for LTC

11T Magnet Test Plan Guram Chlachidze

Dependability Requirements of the LBDS and their Design Implications

16L2 losses indicate UFO type 2

Use of a Diamond BLM System in the LHC Ring

Cryo Problem MD Planning Tue (1.11.) C B Day Time MD MP Tue 01:00

Introduction: FCC beam dumping system

MD2036: UFO dynamics studies and UFO fast detection

Injection region BLMs – ECR

Fast losses at collimators during 16L2 dumps

Acknowledgments: LIU-PT members and deputies, H. Bartosik

LHC BLM system: system overview

Disabling Rules.

Wednesday 17th August Rocky, short fills, initial luminosities are good LHCb polarity change to negative seems ok 18/08/2011 LHC 8:30 meeting.

BEAM LOSS MONITORING SYSTEM

FCC-hh injection group 7

Tuesday 22nd January - morning

LHC Status Su Morning 17-April R. Assmann, B. Holzer et al

Collimator Control (SEUs & R2E Outlook)

Remote setting of LHC BLM thresholds?

Damage Levels V. Kain AB/Co

Verification of the Beam Loss studies at start-up

BLM changes HV software interlock (SIS)

Sensitivity tests of BLM_S chamber in PSB dump

Why do BLMs need to know the Quench Levels?

Warm Magnet Thresholds

Commissioning of the Beam Conditions Monitor of the LHCb Experiment at CERN Ch. Ilgner, October 23, 2008 on behalf of the LHCb BCM group at TU Dortmund:

Operational Results of LHC Collimator Alignment using Machine Learning

Thursday 10:00 Fill 1986 in stable beams.

What systems request a beam dump? And when do we need them?

Operational Results of LHC Collimator Alignment using Machine Learning

Presentation transcript:

AOB: Adjustments to BLM Thresholds in Light of Run-2 Experience with UFOs B. Auchmann, J. Ghini, L. Grob, A. Lechner, D. Wollmann. 118 th MPP,

List of UFO-Related Dumps Full list on > Run-2 UFO Events. Non-negligible number of dumps from LSS! *… according to thresholds model. *

LSS Mitigation Cumulative effect of several element types needs to be addressed. ALFA – changes implemented. TCTs IPQs an IPDs Empty Cryostats 4

IPQs, IPDs IPQs and D2-4: Assumed scenarios are conservative wrt. UFO losses. (For details see Monitor factor of 0.1 is more conservative than in Arc/DS. Proposal for short-term action: Increase the monitor factor from 0.1 to Leave special monitor-families for injection losses unchanged. Would have prevented the observed beam dumps. D1 thresholds must remain conservative to avoid symmetric beam-induced quench. 5

Empty Cryostat Mitigation No risk of damage or quenches. Proposal for ion-runs (under preparation) foresees to set the monitors in question to maximum thresholds. Short-term proposal: Set empty-cryostat BLM thresholds to maximum. 6

Arc/DS Observations Three quenches were not prevented. However, avoiding three quenches means >20 additional unnecessary dumps. Can we, on the contrary, increase thresholds to improve availability? 7

Arc/DS Observations Out of 10 dumps without quench: 8 were too late to significantly shorten the UFO. 1 may have shortened the UFO but there was no risk of quenching. 1 potentially avoided a quench. 8 BLM UFO location 15 L2 BLM dump absorber 4L6 Synchronization accurate to µs (C. Zamantzas priv. comm.) 160 µs , 04:26:39, Beam 1

Arc/DS Observations Counter-example: 3 rd UFO-induced quench. Loss-event clearly cut short – but too late to prevent the quench. 9 BLM UFO location 20L3 BLM dump absorber 4R6 Synchronization accurate to µs (C. Zamantzas priv. comm.) , 16:00:47, Beam 2

Arc/DS Mitigation Down time due to a quench is 3-4 times longer than for a protection dump without quench. Proposal for short-term action: Increase of monitor factor from to 0.5 would have prevented 7-8 out of 10 beam dumps. would have increased the probability to quench in 1 case. 10

Summary of Proposals IPQ, IPD (except B1): Monitor factor from 0.1 to for all but injection families. Empty cryostat: Set thresholds to maximum. TCTs: adjust fast RSs. Arc/DS: Monitor factor from to 0.5. MP3 has give green light for cold-magnet threshold increase. If unsuccessful, changes will be rolled back after proton run. 11

12 Extra Slides

BLM Response and Quench Locations 13 Quench UFO locations. FLUKA model by A. Lechner et al.

Energy Deposition 14 FLUKA model by A. Lechner et al.

, 00:56:49, 2 nd UFO BIQ 15 Reached 190% of threshold 86 bunches

, 16:00:47, 3 rd UFO BIQ 16 Reached 140% of threshold

, 21:27:43 17

, 1:23:25 18

, 4:26:39 19

, 14:29:42 20

, 19:16:04, 420% of thres. 21 Shortened the event and potentially avoided a quench.

, 15:06:34 22

, 21:21:28 23

, 1:2:16 – extra short event 24 Potentially shortened the event. No risk of quenching (high BLM sensitivity in the UFO location). (not recorded by UFO buster!)

, 22:10:17 25

, 01:32:39 – very short event 26 Probably did not significantly shorten event. (B2 dumped R6, UFO is R7, i.e., at least first 40 µs of dump are inconsequential for UFO location)

Recovery Times

Recovery Times

Recovery Times