Participants:
Matthew Fraser
Antoine Colinet
Laurie Nevay
Florian Stummer
Francesco Velotti
Kevin Lee
Johannes Bernhard
Rui Ximenes
Jean-Louis Grenard
Gemma Stacey Humphreys
Mark Parkin
Louis Pereira
Mathieu Saccani
James Ridewood
Raul Murillo Garcia

Zoom
Alex Gorn
Thomas Zickler
Richard Jacobsson
Richard Mompo
Aymeric Dutruel
Yves Gaillard
Camille Vandeuvre
David Belohrad
Dipanwita Banerjee
Massimiliano Ferro-Luzzi
Philip Schwarz

Machine performance (Matt)

Shows the list of experts: Action: Update M. Ferro-Luzzi
as “SHiP Muon Shield” and TE-MSC for “SHiP Magnets”

• FGC3 need to have different interlock thresholds for BEAM IN and BEAM OUT:

  • Action: Antoine to organise a follow-up meeting with ABT, OP and EPC meeting to formalise the request and make an EDMS placeholder for the document (ask Natalya KHAN)

• MCB will deflect beam into P42 for all operational wobbling scenarios

• Wobbling scenarios will be setup during commissioning:

  • To be switched during the run by expert, only those wobbling configurations that have been checked and commissioned. Downtime needed to setup new configurations during the run
  • Wobbling settings will be critical settings and only trimmable by expert

• No guarantee that beam will not accidently impact P4 stopper:

  • Wobbling settings will be protected by software. Action: Antoine to organise a follow-up discussion with ABT, OP and EA to formalise the development of the SIS implementation and make an EDMS placeholder for the document (ask Natalya KHAN)
  • BLM placement downstream of P4 beam stopper could protect Action: Antoine to organise a follow-up meeting with ABT/BI/EA to make sure BLM connection to the BIS is not ignored when P4 stopper IN

• To be discussed if BSI / BSG can be implemented in SIS:

  • Action: Antoine to organise a follow-up discussion with BI to understand timeline and possibilities for FESA modifications / SW interlock

• BDF target protection (TCC8 interlocks) to be treated at a later discussion:

  • Cooling station / flow rate etc.
  • Thermocouples of the target: Action: Rui to understand reaction speed of any target instrumentation systems, do any provide a quick ID of failure
  • Dilution system
  • Preference to have a very simple system for interlocking live during the spill, avoid reconstructing beam position.

Specific systems we need to protect:

• T4 vertical bypass
• T4 wobbling
• Splitters in TDC2: need to be more specific with wording
• BDF target

• Errors coming from the ring/line upstream should be taken into account (error study required)
  • Action: Alex to collect table of failures and follow-up once P42 optics fixed

Beam interlock system (A. Colinet)

Proposes some changes to update architecture of the BIS

Presents new BIS architecture with different controllers

It will work differently for different beam destinations:

• Non-FTARGET destinations (monitor MSE Imin)
• Beam to TT20 TED (Basically monitor all the controllers upstr. TED)
• SFTPRO (the beam must not hit the P4 stopper, M2 TAX and P4 stopper can be in/out in all possible combinations, no check of intensity)
• SFTSHIP (check of intensity in the ring, beam must not hit the T4 and P4 XTAX if I > 1.5e13 ppp)
  • P42 dump in
  • P42 dump out

Other actions:

• Septa PC consolidation NEPTUNE… is this going ahead in LS3 and how will they be protected?
  • Action: Antoine to contact EPC
• Understand T4 Target role as EIS and make sure target position becomes a critical setting
  • Action: Antoine to contact Jerome LENDARO (BE-CEM)
• Particle transfer for dedicated beam will not include TT23 and TT25 but they should be interlocked and be at zero:
  • Action: Antoine to clarify this with EPC
• The T4 vertical bump is composed of several bumpers:
  • Action: Antoine to clarify this with ABT/EA and EPC

Next steps:

• Update BIS ES: EDMS#2810115 and freeze BIS arch.
• Next meeting: Review failure scenarios
• Follow up the T4 review (WP2 meeting next week)
• Define different interlocking strategies
• Discuss commissioning scenarios

Next meeting 27th March 2025