Eva Barbara Holzer July 16, 2010 1 LHC MPP Eva Barbara Holzer for the BLM team LHC MPP CERN, July 17, 2010 Proposal on Threshold Corrections for RC Filters.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Introducing LEP3 zero M. Koratzinos TLEP3 day, 9 January2013.
Advertisements

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.
HB2008 Aug. 26, 2008 Beam loss monitoring using proportional counters at J-PARC T. Toyama, K. Satou, S. Lee, A. Akiyama, Y. Hashimoto, N. Hayashi, H. Nakagawa.
K. Potter RADWG & RADMON Workshop 1 Dec WELCOME TO THE 4th RADWG & RADMON WORKSHOP 1 December 2004.
Note: most of the slides shown here are picked from CERN accelerator workshops. Please refer to those workshop for further understanding of the accelerator.
Answers/considerations to the questions raised on the last ASSRC meeting on Sept. 24, 2013 The following is my summary from s, private communication.
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.
GLAST LAT Project Calibration & Analysis Meeting - August 29, 2005 Benoît Lott Gamma-ray Large Area Space Telescope Response of the GLAST LAT Calorimeter.
PROFIBUS controller problem (SEU) on cryo valve on DFBMH (600 A circuit RQ6.L7B1/2). Loss of cryo maintain ==> Beam dump. End of fill #1975 after ~2.5.
Lot’s of time lost due to cryo problem in IR8. Major impact, therefore review of MD program… Start discussion here, please let us know your input. Will.
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,
Eva Barbara Holzer IEEE NSS, Puerto Rico October 26, Beam Loss Monitoring System of the LHC Eva Barbara Holzer, CERN for the LHC BLM team IEEE Nuclear.
An Example Use Case Scenario
SPS scrubbing experience: electron cloud observables L. Mether on behalf of the LIU-SPS e-cloud team LIU SPS scrubbing review, September 8, 2015.
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,
Ralph Assmann What Do We Want To Measure (in 2009) R. Assmann S. Redaelli, V. Previtali CERN/BE discussed with W. Scandale CERN/EN26/3/2009CC09  See also.
BCT for protection LHC Machine Protection Review April 2005 David Belohrad, AB-BDI-PI
Status of FLUKA Simulations for Collimation BLM Thresholds 6 th BLM Threshold Working Group 10/02/2015 E.Skordis On behalf of the FLUKA team Sixtrack input.
C. Fischer – LHC Instrumentation Review – 19-20/11/2001 Gas Monitors for Transverse Distribution Studies in the LHC LHC Instrumentation Review Workshop.
B. Auchmann, O. Picha, Joint CWG/BLMTWG Meeting August
Simulation of the interaction of macro- particles with the LHC proton beam Zhao Yang, EPFL
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.
BLM - MPP review, BLM Team, B. Dehning1 BLM – MPP review Hardware nonconformities and safety Equipment failures IP 3 signal cross talk IP 2 sanity.
A. Bondarevskaya Highly charged ion beam polarization and its application to the search for the parity nonconservation effects in ions
Modifications to the Threshold Calculator Application Matti Kalliokoski 15 th BLM Thresholds WG Meeting 26/05/2015.
Wednesday ● 02h04: Stable beams # b x 121b. – Peak luminosity 1.2e25 cm-2 s-1 ● 08h32: Beams dumped on request. – Length=6h28. Rampdown.
Simulation comparisons to BLM data E.Skordis On behalf of the FLUKA team Tracking for Collimation Workshop 30/10/2015 E. Skordis1.
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,
1 Commissioning and Early Operation – View from Machine Protection Jan Uythoven (AB/BT) Thanks to the members of the MPWG.
Chamonix 2006, B.Dehning 1 Commissioning of Beam Loss Monitors B. Dehning CERN AB/BDI.
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,
Cryo back at 17:30 Beam back at 19:00 IR2 aperture until ~03:00 Since then no beam from the SPS:  Connector problem on MKD  Connector eroded, needs to.
1Ben ConstanceCTF3 working meeting – 09/01/2012 Known issues Inconsistency between BPMs and BPIs Response of BPIs is non-linear along the pulse Note –
Eva Barbara Holzer MPP, CERN July 31, Eva Barbara Holzer, CERN MPP CERN, July 31, 2009 BLM System Audit Sequel.
E.B. Holzer BLM Meeting: Q & A March 20, Questions and Answers.
2 nd BLMTWG meeting, B. Auchmann, O. Picha, with A. Lechner.
Eva Barbara Holzer LHC Machine Protection ReviewSeptember 6, Eva Barbara Holzer LHC Machine Protection ReviewSeptember 6, Eva Barbara Holzer.
Overview of LHC Beam Loss Measurements
Use of a Diamond BLM System in the LHC Ring
LHC Wire Scanner Calibration
The TV Beam Observation system - BTV
2007 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium (NSS)
BEAM LOSS MONITORING SYSTEM
Dependability Requirements of the LBDS and their Design Implications
Use of a Diamond BLM System in the LHC Ring
Second look at the results of the 2012 analysis of triplet thresholds
Power converters for 2GeV injection
MD2036: UFO dynamics studies and UFO fast detection
Injection region BLMs – ECR
Disabling Rules.
BEAM LOSS MONITORING SYSTEM
Intensity Evolution Estimate for LHC
Remote setting of LHC BLM thresholds?
Direct Dump Tests Modify
LHC Injection and Dump Protection
Verification of the Beam Loss studies at start-up
Agenda 9:00-10:00 Beam Interlock System Changes Following the 2006 Audit Benjamin Todd 10:00-11:00 Beam Dump System follow-up from the 2008 Audit Jan Uythoven.
C.Octavio Domínguez, Humberto Maury Cuna
BLM changes HV software interlock (SIS)
Sensitivity tests of BLM_S chamber in PSB dump
Why do BLMs need to know the Quench Levels?
Beam Loss Simulations LHC
Warm Magnet Thresholds
Monday 8th December Morning used for RF work (IP z, injection), damper noise checks. Stable beams period with LHCb spectrometer OFF – lost beam after.
Injection Region BLM changes
CAL crosstalk issues and their implications
Tuesday 6th April 8:00 Injection studies 16:00 RF studies
Presentation transcript:

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

Eva Barbara Holzer LHC MPPJuly 16,

Eva Barbara Holzer LHC MPPJuly 16,

Eva Barbara Holzer LHC MPPJuly 16,  RC filter for the monitors requested by the injection team factor 25 (all are external monitors;)  Maximum current will be reduced by a factor of 8.3 by RC filter and additional factor of 3 with (future) thresholds  Factor of ~10 between signal on external and internal monitors  For moment the threshold values not changed!  For all other energies the thresholds are now too high  A quench could occur  New thresholds to be calculated asap  All these monitors set to maskable  Estimate: Quench of magnet by outside shower if injection intensity 2e13 History (April 2010): Injection of higher intensity

Eva Barbara Holzer LHC MPPJuly 16, Allow injection losses  450 GeV thresholds have to be adapted to the shape of instantaneous (delta) losses. Well defined procedure, which was already done for different magnets (not discussed here). 2.All other energies: adapt thresholds to ‘cancel’ the effect of the filter  Definition of cancel: same amount of loss leads to beam abort with the same time delay  Correction factor for thresholds depends on the time evolution of the beam loss  100% correction for all possible loss scenarios is not possible  need to decide on a reasonable loss evolution New Thresholds after filter installation

Eva Barbara Holzer LHC MPPJuly 16,  Filter response approximated by exponentially decaying signal (rise time = zero).  For bigger filters (rise time 0.3ms) this is not a good approximation  For the filter in question the rise time is between 0.12 ms to 0.2ms (to be confirmed). If confirmed, the thresholds of the first 3 integration times should be reduced further accordingly.  Analytical calculation  Filter response folded with loss evolution  Integrated signal Investigate Dependence on Loss Evolution

Eva Barbara Holzer LHC MPPJuly 16, Proton loss distributions Time normalized to integration time Protons lost in a.u. δ(t - 0) δ(t - integration_time)

Eva Barbara Holzer LHC MPPJuly 16, δ(t - 0) 1-exp(-RS/RC) RS…integration time RC…filter time constant 2.Constant loss 1-(RC/RS)*(1-exp(-RS/RC)) 3.Linear increasing loss 1+(2*RC*RC/(RS*RS))*(1-exp(-RS/RC))-2*RC/RS 4.Exponentially increasing with time constant equal to integration time:  The longer the running sum, the slower the development of the loss to protect against  Argument: The running sum RS5 with an integration time of 2.56 ms should protect against losses which develop on that time scale.  The shortest RS has to protect against instantaneous (which are the most dangerous ones for the magnet). 5.δ(t - integration_time)  not possible to cancel the effect (thresholds go towards zero when delta function approaches the end of the integration window)  When corrections are calculated with δ(t - 0) the maximum time delay of the abort signal is the integration time of the RS Loss distributions: correction effect gets stronger

Eva Barbara Holzer LHC MPPJuly 16, Correction factors for RC time constant of 2ms Multiplication correction factor for the 12 integration time windows. A factor of 1 means no correction. Time [s]

Eva Barbara Holzer LHC MPPJuly 16, Correction factors for RC time constant of 2ms RS [ms] delta(t-0) 1-exp(- RS/RC) constlinear Exp.Delta/exp. RS RS RS RS RS RS RS RS RS RS RS RS

Eva Barbara Holzer LHC MPPJuly 16,  Maximum difference  between δ(t - 0) and the exponential increase  factor 3.3  Proposal  Apply the least correction: δ(t - 0)  Practical reasons  RS5 is comparatively low already  This type of correction is already applied on all RS1 – RS3 for ion signal effect (ionization chamber does not give delta signal)  Biggest difference seen is only factor 3.3  Do we need to protect against faster losses?  Rise time effect (measured: 0.12 ms to 0.2ms) ? Conclusion for RC time constant of 2ms

Eva Barbara Holzer LHC MPPJuly 16, Some more slides

Eva Barbara Holzer LHC MPPJuly 16, Over-injection

Eva Barbara Holzer LHC MPPJuly 16,  Thresholds 4 MBX monitors now allow for over-injection onto a ‘fat’ pilot. Requested: Brennan  40us to 10ms (RS1 to RS6 ) changed for 450 GeV  BLMEI.04R8.B2E10_MBXB and BLMEI.04L2.B1E10_MBXA  Up to ‘pilot’ of ~8e9  At the next possibility: increase margin to 1.2e10 (same as MQXA)  Thresholds to be recalculated (unnecessarily low for higher energies)  BLMEI.04R8.B2E20_MBXB and BLMEI.04L2.B1E20_MBXA  Final – to be verified  Threshold on TCT not increased (requested: Ralph)  next in the line to trigger  Two additional corrections:  Swap names: BLMEI.04L2.B1E10_MBXA and BLMEI.04L2.B1E20_MBXA  Past logging data reassigned accordingly – should be transparent  Corrected threshold settings (3 MBX monitors were in wrong family)  ECR to be done once all changes finalized Over-injection