TE-MPE-TM 02/08/2012, TE-MPE-MS section RENOVATION OF SPS MAGNET INTERLOCK SYSTEM 1 CURRENT SITUATION CONSOLIDATION PROPOSALS Y.Bastian, P.Dahlen, R.Mompo, I.Romera, M.Zerlauth

TE-MPE-TM 02/08/2012, TE-MPE-MS section SPS LAYOUT and Magnet Powering SPS composed of 6 sextants Main dipole and quad magnets powered in series per (demi-) sextant, power converter located in respective BA Auxiliary (corrector) magnets powered individually from respective BA Ring-line magnets (octupoles, sextupoles) powered in series in whole SPS ring from BB3 Current interlock system built in 1974 (mains)  1980 (Aux)

TE-MPE-TM 02/08/2012, TE-MPE-MS section 3 Main Dipole and Quadrupole Magnets (1123 in whole ring) Ring-Line Magnet (232 in whole ring) Auxiliary Magnet (290 in Total) SPS MAGNET POWERING

TE-MPE-TM 02/08/2012, TE-MPE-MS section SPS MAGNET INTERLOCK SYSTEM Each magnet has an interlock box to collect signals from thermo-switches and for visual indication («trefle»)

TE-MPE-TM 02/08/2012, TE-MPE-MS section SPS MAGNET INTERLOCK SYSTEM - MAINS 1 interlock crate per BA 2 interlock cards, 1 for main dipole, 1 for QF/QD Signals for dipoles and quadrupole chains are treated by demi-sextant (up to 60 magnets in series) No spare crate for SPS main interlocks! 1 single spare card (obsolete relay types!)

TE-MPE-TM 02/08/2012, TE-MPE-MS section SPS MAGNET INTERLOCK SYSTEM – AUXILIARY MAGNETS

TE-MPE-TM 02/08/2012, TE-MPE-MS section SPS MAGNET INTERLOCK SYSTEM – AUXILIARY MAGNETS 1 interlock crate per BA 4-5 interlock cards/crate, each managing up to 3 auxiliary magnets Individual powering of auxiliary magnets (1 magnet – 1 power converter) Sufficient spare crates and spare cards available

TE-MPE-TM 02/08/2012, TE-MPE-MS section SPS MAGNET INTERLOCK SYSTEM – RING LINE MAGNETS

TE-MPE-TM 02/08/2012, TE-MPE-MS section SPS MAGNET INTERLOCK SYSTEM – RING LINE MAGNETS Single crate located in BB3 4 magnet families connected in series in whole ring, powered by converters in BB3 (focusing/defocusing sextupoles, octupoles and skew correctors) Sufficient spare crates and spare cards available Sophisticated reflectometry measurement to determine fault location (more or less precisely…) Considerable impedance in ring line, impacting threshold determination for interlock Issue with tighter thermal limits (see next slide) + ageing thermo-switches

TE-MPE-TM 02/08/2012, TE-MPE-MS section Main magnets: dipoles & quadrupoles -Only problems encountered appear during the restart of the SPS due to water valves which had been forgotten to be opened. Auxiliary magnets: -Very stable as well, 2-3 interlock modules were replaced due to electro- mechanical failures (in the shadow of normal operation). Ring-Line magnets: -Due to continuous optimization of SPS performance, corrector strengths pushed close to the limits -> More overheating of magnets -Last problem needed 16 hours of downtime due to increase of impedance of some thermo-switches (radiation and age). Other aspects to take into account: -Very time demanding re-commissioning -It can take 2 weeks for 2 people to test all interlock signals OPERATIONAL EXPERIENCE DURING PAST 10 YEARS

TE-MPE-TM 02/08/2012, TE-MPE-MS section 2012 CONSOLIDATION 11 New spare cards and racks for main magnet interlocks have been built (fully compatible with existing HW) to assure operation until LS1 (and beyond?) Lab tests completed, awaiting final validation in situ (during next TS) 8 cards are ready 2 racks available in stock

TE-MPE-TM 02/08/2012, TE-MPE-MS section Renovation of SPS magnet interlocks In long term a renovation/alignment to standard interlock system probably inevitable (adding diagnostics, archiving, …) The current (electromechanic) system works (very) well, but is very tricky to debug in case of more complex failures Ring line + magnet interlock boxes (+ trefle) are the major source of worries What are our technical options for a renovation…? To renovate or not to renovate?!

TE-MPE-TM 02/08/2012, TE-MPE-MS section PROPOSALS FOR RENOVATION OPTION #1 : Do nothing and rely on ongoing consolidation  Estimated cost : negligible  Ressources : negligible  PRO: The system works well according to SPS OP, no ressource conflict with other MS renovation projects in LS1  CON: Risk of major problem and lengthy repair, resulting in costly LHC downtime

TE-MPE-TM 02/08/2012, TE-MPE-MS section OPTION #2 : Replacement of existing electromechanic chassis with Standard safety PLCs and boolean I/Os in each BA  Estimated cost : 30kCHF / BA = 180kCHF  Ressources: ~ 0.5 FTE from MS, 3 weeks from EN-ICE (SCADA + PLC)  PRO: Simple, standard WIC solution (safety), no change of cabling in SPS tunnel, diagnostic per demi-sextant (apart from ring-line)  CON: Ring-line remains, no precise localization of fault, no easy solution to replace ‘reflectometry’ for fault finding, no remote test PROPOSALS FOR RENOVATION

TE-MPE-TM 02/08/2012, TE-MPE-MS section OPTION #3 : Idem as #2 + for the ringline: 2 cables pulled around the SPS to split ring-lines and collect information by (demi) sextant in PLC installed in BB3  Estimated cost : Idem as #2 + ~ 115kCHF for additional cables + patches = 300kCHF  Ressources : ~0.75 FTE from MS, 3 weeks from EN-ICE (SCADA + PLC)  PRO: Simple, standard WIC solution (safety), no change of cabling in SPS tunnel, diagnostic per sextant, no need for reflectometry  CON: No precise localization of fault, no remote test, more costly, additional HW patches in tunnel PROPOSALS FOR RENOVATION

TE-MPE-TM 02/08/2012, TE-MPE-MS section OPTION #4 : Idem as #2 but split ringline in sextants, with conventional cables bringing the ring lines to the PLC in each BA + PLC-PLC communication with BB3 for auxiliaries  Estimated cost : Idem to #2 + ~ 110 kCHF for cables between tunnel/BAs = 300kCHF  Ressources : ~0.75 FTE from MS, 3 weeks from EN-ICE (SCADA + PLC)  PRO: Simple, standard WIC solution (safety), small (but feasible) change of cabling in SPS tunnel, diagnostic per sextant, no need for reflectometry  CON: No precise localization of fault, no remote test, somewhat more costly, new special part of PLC program for PLC-PLC comm PROPOSALS FOR RENOVATION

TE-MPE-TM 02/08/2012, TE-MPE-MS section OPTION #5 : Replacement of existing chassis with PLCs and analogue I/Os (more complex SW implementation as non standard, maintain cabling, remove trefle, diagnostic for each magnet, no remote test...)  Estimated cost : slightly more expensive to # 2+ ~110kCHF for cables between tunel/BAs + new magnet boxes = 400kCHF  Ressources : ~1.5 FTE from MS, 4 months from EN-ICE (SCADA + PLC)  PRO: Safety implementation possible, diagnostic per magnet (no need for reflectometry), on-line surveillance of impedance in each line, no need for ‘trefle’  CON: Non-standard WIC solution (both HW and SW), need new magnet interlock boxes (unique!), no remote test, more costly, long-term stability? PROPOSALS FOR RENOVATION

TE-MPE-TM 02/08/2012, TE-MPE-MS section Power supply 24VDC CPU Ethernet interface Analog inputs Resistors instead of «trefle» PROPOSALS FOR RENOVATION

TE-MPE-TM 02/08/2012, TE-MPE-MS section OPTION #6 : Remote I/Os with Profibus link (complex cabling) Constraints for decision: Radiation levels + validation time for remote I/Os + repeaters, cabling costs, cabling restrictions imposed by EN/EL  Estimated cost : Idem as # 2 + remote I/Os ~ >800kCHF for tunnel cabling = Total 1.2 MCHF  Ressources : ~2 FTE from MS, 3 weeks from EN-ICE (SCADA + PLC)  PRO: The full Monty (remote test, diagnostic per magnet, …)  CON: Huge investment, considerable re-cabling, radiation constraints,… PROPOSALS FOR RENOVATION

TE-MPE-TM 02/08/2012, TE-MPE-MS section PROPOSALS FOR RENOVATION

TE-MPE-TM 02/08/2012, TE-MPE-MS section Potentiel «Rad-Tol» Profibus DP slave modules? We know that SIEMENS hardware does not cope very well with radiation! Digital I/O modules (“Profi-XXXX” series) from ICP DAS were identified as potential candidates to be «Rad-Tol» due to their simple design & architecture! It is based on a «VPCSL2» ASIC ship that provide a complete PROFIBUS DP solution without the need of an additional microcontroller or software. This module must be qualified to radiation (needs time!!!) and could provide a solution for “hot” areas in the future... like the PS? Shift register

TE-MPE-TM 02/08/2012, TE-MPE-MS section Cabling constraints From discussions with Jean-Claude Guillaume… -Re-cabling interlocks in the tunnel (progressive integration…) o Point 1 and 5: Big campaign foreseen during LS1 => Ok for any modification o Point 2: A campaign was done in 2009 => Next big campaign during LS3 o Point 3: Next campaign LS2 o Point 4 and 6: “hottest” places, depending on radiation levels but a major re-cabling in tunnel practically excluded for LS1… -Pulling 2/3rds of cables of SPS: -From BB3 up to BA1 => Feasible -From BB3 up to BA6 => Feasible -Pulling cables from the surface buildings (BAs) to the tunnel = > Feasible

TE-MPE-TM 02/08/2012, TE-MPE-MS section MS Ressources - Tentative planning of other WIC renovation projects - NOT taken into account: Re-commissioning and maintenance of existing systems, other responsibilities and activities other than WIC,…

TE-MPE-TM 02/08/2012, TE-MPE-MS section SUMMARY DescriptionCostManpowerPROCON Consolidation Option #1 ---Risk of lengthy failure Option #2 (Boolean PLC) 180kCHF0.5 FTE (MS) FTE (ICE) Simple + standard, no cabling, diagnostic Ring line remains, no remote test, info only by sextants/ring Option #3 (Boolean PLC + cable) 300kCHF0.75 FTE (MS) FTE (ICE) Simple + standard, diagnostic per demi-sextant Additional cabling + patches, no remote test Option #4 (Boolean PLC + PLC comms) 300kCHF0.75 FTE (MS) FTE (ICE) Simple + standard, diagnostic per demi-sextant Special (non-safety part in PLC, no remote test Option #5 (Analogue I/Os) 400kCHF1.5 FTE (MS) FTE (ICE) Diagnostic per magnet without major Completely new SW projects, no remote test Option #6 (Profibus) >1.2MCHF2 FTE (MS) FTE (ICE) Full MontyConsiderable investment, validation time for rad tolerant I/Os, feasibility?

TE-MPE-TM 02/08/2012, TE-MPE-MS section MS Proposal for LS1 and post LS1 In view of the discussed technical and resource constraints a renovation of the SPS interlock system is considered feasible along the following lines: -Implementation of option 3 or 4 (depending on decision of EN/EL), options 5 and 6 are too resource and cost intensive to justify their benefits -Exchange of thermo-switches with ELMWOOD type, at least for all ring line magnets (in collaboration with MSC and SPS OP) during LS1 -Progressive replacement of magnet interlock boxes (new ‘trefle’) during LS1 and post LS1