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

2. 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

3. 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
22. MCWG meeting

4. 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

5. 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
Fills in Flat Top mode
Validation set ~80 fills
22. MCWG meeting

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. Thank you!
21. MCWG meeting

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

12. 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
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

13. 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

14. 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