Choose timezone
Your profile timezone:
North Area Interlocking Task Force - Meeting 1
→
Europe/Zurich
Present: Johannes Bernhard, Nikos Charitonidis, Verena Kain, Stephane Cettour-Cave, James Ridewood, Francesco Velotti, David Nisbet, Ivan Romera, Jan Uythoven
North Area Interlocking Task Force (I. Romera)
The mandate of the Task Force (TF) is to define the interlocking strategy for the North Area and SPS Slow Extraction in the framework of the North Area consolidation project. The TF will have a duration of 6 months and shall formalize the interlocking requirements in a Technical Specification. The TF includes representatives from BE-EA, BE-OP, SY-ABT, SY-EPC and TE-MPE.
A draft interlocking layout was presented which includes the protection of TT20, TDC2 and a selection of beam lines in the North Area (i.e. P42, K12 and M2 lines). In addition, the SHiP beamline needs to be considered in case the project is approved in the future.
The proposed interlocking solution is based on the use of standard Beam Interlock Controllers (BICs) arranged in a tree architecture, where a Master controller gathers local permits from Slave controllers. The draft equations were presented with the information known so far.
The interlocking approach will not rely on different beam momenta as done for the SPS fast extraction. Instead, both the beam to the NA targets as well as the future beam for the SHiP beamline will be extracted at 400 GeV/c. The programmed timing destination will be used to distinguish between beam to the NA targets or SHiP in the extraction interlock system. Verena asked to analyse this approach in detail and which additional parameters should be taken into account to make the implementation more robust. The use of the beam destination is not reliable enough as nothing as nothing prevents extracting a beam with destination different than FTARGET.
ACTION: For the next meeting, we have to discuss other parameters that can be used to make the interlock implementation more robust.
Johannes noted that the monitoring of the magnet currents is momentarily disabled when beam scans are performed in the North Area. David asked how machine protection is ensured in case of disabling this feature. Johannes replied that only a restricted group of people can enable/disable this feature and is controlled by RBAC.
Jan asked if there are beam intensity limitations for the TT20 TED and the P42 TAX. Verena confirmed there are some limitations for the TT20 TED. Johannes replied that there are no limitations for the P42 TAX.
Jan asked to confirm the role of the TBSE in TT20. Verena noted that the TBSE beam stopper has the role to protect in case of access downstream the TT20 line.
Verena noted that we have to clarify the need for Fast Magnet Current Change Monitors (FMCMs) to monitor the current on the MSE/MST and MBE magnets. David said that the new Power Converters are equipped with the possibility to interlock on the “didt”, which can be an alternative to the FMCMs.
Regarding the interlocking strategy for the M2 line, Jan proposed to use a similar approach as for the P42 and K12 lines: 1) dump the beam on the internal SPS beam dump and 2) inhibit the slow extraction to the NA while the M2 TAX is being inserted in the beamline. Johannes argued that the initial approach was not to interlock the SPS beam as there is no risk for the equipment, but he agreed to do it to have a uniform strategy.
ACTION: review the interlocking layout to include the M2 BIC as input to the LSS2 Master BIC.
Ivan asked if the BIS should also look at the cooling of the T2, T4 and T6 NA targets. Verena confirmed and noted they are checked by the SIS at present.
There are minutes attached to this event.
Show them.
