1

Commissioning and Early Commissioning and Early Operation – View from Operation – View from

Machine ProtectionMachine ProtectionJan Uythoven (AB/BT)

Thanks to the members of the MPWG

Jan Uythoven, AB/BT

Chamonix@Divonne 2006, Comm.– view from MP

Page 2

Commissioning of the Commissioning of the Machine Protection SystemMachine Protection System

The LHC cannot be operated without a Machine Protection System (MPS) which is guaranteed to work properly Significant damage and long downtimes can be the

result of a not properly working MPS The path of commissioning of the MPS

needs to be well defined in advance This will be a recurring task during the

commissioning of the LHC but also after shutdowns, access, etc.

Beam Energy Tracking

Beam Dumping System

4 x DCCT Dipole Current

(4/5, 5/6, 6/7, 7/8)

RF turn clock

Powering Interlock System

Quench Protection

Power Converters

Discharge Switches

AUGUPS

Cryogenics essentialcircuits

auxiliarycircuits

Safe LHCParameters

Beam Current Monitors

CurrentEnergy

Energy

SafeBeamFlag

Required also for safe beam

SPS ExtractionInterlocks

TL collimators

Timing PM Trigger

BLMs aperture

BPMs for Beam Dump

LHC Experiments

Collimators / Absorbers

NC Magnet Interlocks

Vacuum System

RF + Damper

dI/dt beam current

BLMs arc

BPMs for dx/dt + dy/dt

dI/dt magnet current

OperatorsSoftware Interlocks

Screens

Machine Protection System and connected equipment

Injection Kickers

LHCBeam

Interlock System

Access Safety System

Beam DumpTrigger

Required for unsafe beam

Jan Uythoven, AB/BT

Chamonix@Divonne 2006, Comm.– view from MP

Page 4

Systems to CommissionSystems to Commission The core of the system

The Beam Interlock System (BIS) The LHC Beam Dumping System (LBDS)

All the systems connected to it BLM QPS – PIC – WIC Collimator System ….

Related systems Hardware

Safe Beam Parameters Beam Presence Flag

Software Post Mortem system Management of critical settings Software Interlock System Sequencer

Jan Uythoven, AB/BT

Chamonix@Divonne 2006, Comm.– view from MP

Page 5

Stages in CommissioningStages in CommissioningI. Without BeamI. Without Beam

Commissioning of MPS and connected equipment First test in the laboratory Followed by equipment test in the machine Followed by hardware Commissioning

Equipment tests under ‘normal operating conditions’ Interface between systems

A maximum of functions should be tested without beam Individual equipment, interface between systems, Post Mortem

analysis, Sequencer, Safe Beam Parameters, etc. Also if they can only be tested partially without beam, the partial

tests should be done as soon as possible

Jan Uythoven, AB/BT

Chamonix@Divonne 2006, Comm.– view from MP

Page 6

II. With beamII. With beam Many systems, like the BLM, Collimators and the

LBDS, will also need to be commissioned WITH beam Test individual systems with beam Test interface between systems with beam

The tests might need to be repeated at different stages in the commissioning Different beam intensities Different beam energies Different operational states:

Optics (squeeze ) Polarities of the magnets of the experiments Ion operation

Jan Uythoven, AB/BT

Chamonix@Divonne 2006, Comm.– view from MP

Page 7

Different Stages of Different Stages of CommissioningCommissioning

Different stages of operation Increasing risk Different operational states, not checked before

After commissioning of a stage, operation should be declared safe for given conditions (intensity, energy, state)

The ‘jump’ to the next stage should be small enough so that the commissioning process itself is safe

Several systems might move into the next stage together, but only one should be commissioned at a time

Step small enough to detect ‘misbehaviour’ but still functioning safely Commissioning of stage for a system

Can be ‘binary’: system not used before, to be used as of that stage Can already be commissioned at an earlier stage than required

Can be ‘continuous’: systems need to be retested to check the effect of larger beam intensities or energy or state on that specific equipment

Need to be re-commissioned at each defined stage

Jan Uythoven, AB/BT

Chamonix@Divonne 2006, Comm.– view from MP

Page 8

Definition of StagesDefinition of Stages Different stages

Can be different, and will be probably be more, than the stages as defined by Roger (1 bunch, 43 bunches, energies…)

Will be different for the different systems Injection system will not have different states depending on beam

energy: always at 450 GeV LBDS will have many stages depending on energy and fewer

depending on intensity Different Stages not ‘linear’: not always increasing in

intensity and energy First energy ramp with safe beam intensity, although injection might

already be commissioned for higher intensities Reduce intensity again when change of optics etc.

Complex description of the stages at which the different machine protection elements will need to be commissioned

Jan Uythoven, AB/BT

Chamonix@Divonne 2006, Comm.– view from MP

Page 9

Simplification of the Simplification of the Different StagesDifferent Stages

Some ‘main stages’ which can be identified for the different systems Based on possible damage levels

Will need additional sub stages and not always ‘linear’ ( see previous slide)

Used in next talk Jörg Wenninger: ‘What systems request a beam dump?’

Comm. before first beam

First pilot N = 10^12 p+ 43 bunches 156 bunches 936 bunches

0.45 and 7 TeV 0.45 and 7 TeV 0.45 and 7 TeV 0.45 and 7 TeV 0.45 and 7 TeV

Jan Uythoven, AB/BT

Chamonix@Divonne 2006, Comm.– view from MP

Page 10

Different SystemsDifferent Systems In this session, details of the

commissioning of the following systems will be presented Injection System (Verena Kain) Beam Dumping System (Brennan Goddard) Collimation System (Ralph Assmann, Guillaume Robert-

Demolaize) Beam Loss Monitoring System (Bernd Dehning)

Jan Uythoven, AB/BT

Chamonix@Divonne 2006, Comm.– view from MP

Page 11

Sequence of Sequence of CommissioningCommissioning

For a new stage different systems might need to be commissioned ‘simultaneously’

Can only do one at a time. Proposed logical order of commissioning:

1. Injection System2. Beam Dumping System3. Other Systems – expected or unexpected beam

dependence (BPMs, noise pick-up)4. BLM System5. Collimation System

Jan Uythoven, AB/BT

Chamonix@Divonne 2006, Comm.– view from MP

Page 12

Formal TestsFormal Tests Tests should be formalised

Checklist to be established and agreed BEFORE the tests If conditions are not met - tests not successful

not allowed to enter into the next stage To be done without and with beam

Similar as already done for the hardware commissioning

Should be applied to tests foreseen this year CNGS nominal intensity operation (JW) TI 8 (higher intensity?) TT40 high intensity tests with LHC beam (collimator tests) Sector test (low intensity, but important to check functionality)

Jan Uythoven, AB/BT

Chamonix@Divonne 2006, Comm.– view from MP

Page 13

Proposal of Machine Proposal of Machine Protection Coordination TeamProtection Coordination Team

Defines the different stages of commissioning of the Machine Protection System

In collaboration with operation team and equipment experts Dynamic specification, will need to change ‘on the way’ But still agreed and no changes ‘over night’

Defines the tests to be performed to go from one stage to the next

Dynamic specification But still agreed and no changes ‘over night’

Declares when a protection system is fully commissioned Participates in the commissioning of the Machine Protection

System Consulted in case of non-standard situations

Certain pre-defined conditions are not met: can operation continue? Still avoid decisions ‘over night’ (during the night)

Jan Uythoven, AB/BT

Chamonix@Divonne 2006, Comm.– view from MP

Page 14

Machine Protection Machine Protection Coordination TeamCoordination Team

Small team of Machine Protection Experts 4 – 6 people, always some of them available on short notice If required one contact person can be assigned

on duty for about a week Can be contacted by Machine Coordinator, EiC, etc. Advise on operation outside predefined conditions Will contact Machine Coordinator, EiC, etc.

Bring to attention possible dangers, not foreseen, by following up closely the operation of the machine

They will contact other MPS specialists if required

Jan Uythoven, AB/BT

Chamonix@Divonne 2006, Comm.– view from MP

Page 15

ConclusionsConclusions Commissioning of the machine protection system will take

place in stages Starting without beam during equipment tests and the hardware

commissioning period Followed by many different stages with beam Different for the different types of equipment

The different stages and the formal acceptance will need to be defined and agreed upon before the tests

See talks this session: overview, filling, dumping, collimation, BLMs Creation of a Machine Protection Coordination Team

Formalise the above procedures and validate tests Small team of experts, available for consultation +