Choose timezone
Your profile timezone:
Powered by Indico
v3.3.5-pre
Help us make Indico better by taking this survey! Aidez-nous à améliorer Indico en répondant à ce sondage !
The 7th Evian Workshop will be held on 13-15 December 2016 in the Hotel Ermitage in EVIAN (74), France.
Attendance is by invitation only.
The principal aims of the workshop are to:
| Chair | Mike LAMONT |
| Deputy Chairs | Malika MEDDAHI Brennan GODDARD |
| Editors of the Proceedings | Brennan GODDARD Sylvia DUBOURG |
| Informatics & infrastructure support | Hervé MARTINET |
| Workshop Secretary | Sylvia DUBOURG |
Matteo Solfaroli and Chiara Bracco
The way a complex machinery is operated has a direct impact on the production efficiency. In the case of the large hadron collider, that required huge efforts to design and build, it is of the utmost importance to assure an adequate operation quality.
The exceptional results obtained in 2016 prove that all LHC systems and all teams, including the operation, have reached an excellent maturity level.
This presentation will review the present status of the operation highlighting areas where further improvements could be investigated.
Losses at injection will be distinguished between the two main loss causes, transverse loss shower from the transfer line collimators and longitudinal loss shower due to satellites which are placed on the kicker field rise and thus improperly kicked into the machine. The dependence of this losses on the different beam types, TL stability and injector performance will be reviewed. A status and potential improvements of the injection quality diagnostics and new values for the SPS and LHC injection kicker rise times will be suggested.
This talk will present data of turnaround times during the previous run, give some insights in the distribution and try to spot different bottlenecks. The impact of the turnaround time on the optimal fill length will be shown and different contributing factors to the turnaround itself will be discussed. The final goal is to identify areas of improvements and give concrete proposals, based on data presented.
The 2016 proton beam cycles will be analysed, and proposals for improvements will be made based on the results. Some other suggestions are proposed for reducing the beam cycle time, for example modifying the combined ramp and squeeze, and their effects quantified. The objective is to present a synthesis of quantified potential improvements as a basis for further discussion.
This presentation will review the stability of the main operational parameters: orbit, tune, coupling and chromaticity. The analysis will be based on the LSA settings, measured parameters and real-time trims. The focus will be set on ramp and high energy reproducibility as they are more difficult to assess and correct on a daily basis for certain parameters like chromaticity and coupling. The reproducibility of the machine in collision will be analysed in detail, in particular the beam offsets at the IPs since the ever decreasing beam sizes at the IPs make beam steering at the IP more and mode delicate.
Availability - A. Apollonio
Scope is the Proton Run 2016; data has been prepared by the AWG and fault review experts using the AFT.
This presentation is a summary of three individual reports that were written for:
Combination of all of these;
213 days were considered, 153 days of which were dedicated to physics and special physics.
Availability ranged from a minimum of 30% to high of around 90%, which was stable over several weeks. The best weeks achieve around 3fb-1.
Over the 175 + 4 = 179 fills reaching stable beams, 47% reached end of fill, 48% were aborted, 5% were aborted due to suspected radiation effects. The main categories of premature aborts; UFO and FMCM.
Short duration stable beams are due to intensity ramp up. Before MD1 and BCMS the machine was left to run for as long as possible.
In the period of physics production there were 779 faults, with 77 pre-cycles due to faults.
Top 5 are:
The period was dominated by high-impact faults.
Big improvers versus 2015:
Conclusions:
J. Wenninger - what is in the operation section of the pie-chart? Can it be separated?
A, Apollonio - we can quantify it, but not automatically.
L. Ponce- the column for operation mode can be extracted, but we need an automated means to correlate this.
M. Lamont - The operational conditions of the machine being stable appeasr to influence the stability of the LHC availability. Does keeping the operational conditions stable mean that systems will keep (or have kept) the same availability?
A. Apollonio - we will see next year. The comparison of 2015 to 2016 is difficult, as the things like BCMS and bunch spacing has changed the operational conditions of the machine.
L. Ponce- 2015 was dominated by cryogenic recovery and stability, 2016 has not had the same issues. The sources of aborted fills, which are immediately repaired, are a factor which needs to be considered, for example, a fault which leads to a beam abort, which requires no repair, but the machine to be re-filled.
S. Redaelli - this year was one of the years where we lost the most number of operational days due to long faults. Once this is corrected out, what is the characteristic of the fault data?
A. Apollonio - 2016 began with poor availability, with isolated faults, having a long duration, since then it appears that "random faults" have been the driving factor?
S. Redaelli - what about the R2E? why is it so few failures?
S. Danzeca - The TCL settings are one of the main contributors of R2E failures.
G. Rakness - how come at the end of the year there is high availability and yet not much physics produced?
L. Ponce - at the end of the year there were several areas of machine exploitation that meant the machine was not producing physics, for example there were several MDs. It was noted that on 24th October in three consecutive days, there was the highest luminosity delivery of the year.
Technical Services - J. Nielsen
The five systems which are monitored by TIOC;
These categories are distributed across several elements of the AFT tree.
The events which occur are classified by groups, in the future this could be done by mapping systems and equipment instead of by group, matching the approach from the AFT. This will help classify events more clearly.
For example, some systems are groups of systems, the classification could be improved and AFT could show groups of systems. To achieve this the definition of a "system" should be improved.
TIOC meets every Wednesday to analyse the events that have occurred during the week, then recommendations are made to mitigate root causes. TIOC coordinates the larger technical interventions.
If an accelerator is stopped, then a major event is created. The data for such an event is taken once, and is not subsequently synchronised, this could be improved. The major events are presented in the weekly TIOC meeting. The machine or service operator fills in the first part of the information, then the user and/or group then fills in more information.
The fault information for 2016 shows major groups:
Breakdown by fault count (with duration):
Controls and Instrumentation:
Mostly PLC failures.
Equipment Faults:
Usually due to common-mode power supply faults, for example a failure which trips the power supply to several element (selectivity tripping at a higher level),
certain events are due to equipment not suitable for use (old installations being re-tasked), general equipment failure, or calibration problems.
Downtime is higher than 2015, but if you remove the weasel, it is lower (-30%).
Electrical Perturbations:
A general report from the mains supply services shows that 2016 has had -19% thunderstorms than a typical year.
Conclusions
M. Lamont - the weasel showed that there were some spares issues.
J. Nielsen - there were spares, but not in good condition.
D. Nisbet - how do we close the loop with equipment groups? How can we see improvements?
J. Nielsen - next year we hope it the duration of fault assigned to the technical services will be lower, there have been long effect faults. For the follow up it is the equipment groups and users. An event is not closed in the TIOC unless it is not going to be mitigated, or that it has been mitigated.
L. Ponce - the TIOC is doing much more follow up than the machines do for the AFT.
Injector Complex - V. Kain and B. Mikulec
Injectors were the number one cause of 2016 LHC downtime, although it should be taken into account that there are four injectors before LHC. If this was split, then the LHC "injector" would be a shorter bar per machine.
It is not easy to find which accelerator is the source of LHC downtime, AFT is being discussed to be added to assist in this work.
138 faults were attributed to the injectors, with 15 days downtime. This analysis was very time consuming, as the connection from LHC to the injectors logbooks is not automatic.
LINAC2 - 6h 20m as seen by LHC
3 faults, notably replacement of an ignitron
Booster - 11h 45m as seen by LHC
several faults, mainly electro-valves, longest individual fault was 4 hours.
PS - 9 days 10 hours as seen by LHC
power converters, MPS and POPS, vacuum and radio frequency. Power converter is over 6 days of this, vacuum over 1 day, and RF over 15 hours.
SPS - 4 days 19 hours as seen by LHC
power converters (no real systematics) over 1 day, 8 hours. targets and dumps 23 hours, radio frequency over 18 hours. A lot of systematic issues effecting beam quality, but like degraded mode, not an actual fault.
If you contrast the overall performance, as LHC only needs beam during filling, considering each machine as a continuous operation;
LINAC2 - 97.3% uptime, 166h downtime.
Booster - 93.9% uptime, 384h downtime
PS - 88% uptime, 727h downtime
availability per user varies from 79-94%
SPS - 74.8% uptime, 1366h downtime
Issues with fault tracking in the injectors;
Injector AFT
Injector downtime appears to be correlated by a few longer uncorrelated breakdowns.
J. Jowett - the consideration of only the P+ run has hidden some issues which were observed during the P+ Pb run. Although there were other injectors used for the Pb injection.
M. Lamont - how come the LHC was not adversely effected by poor LINAC availability?
B. Mikulec - the LHC never asked for beam, and therefore no fault was logged.
M. Lamont - are the breakdowns really uncorrelated? could be correlated with maintenance activities needing some improvement.
B. Goddard - note that sometimes the maintenance has led to lower availability (e.g. water valves).
L. Ponce - how to keep track of the degraded modes? it is something that was also abandoned in the LHC, in the AFT it was too difficult to track, and so was not done.
R. Steerenberg - having this degraded information for the whole period would make things clearer, at the moment the reality is obscured due to the incomplete capture of the degraded mode.
L. Ponce - agrees, in addition, injector "downtime" can be flagged in AFT, for example, "prevents injection". Following MKI problem this was added, this was not used in 2016. For example the 35h fill, for example, was kept so long to avoid injector issues.
Cryogenics - K. Brodzinski
There are four cryogenic islands, 8 cryogenics plants. A = Low Load, B = High Load.
Cold boxes were tuned, achieving 175W per half cell capacity on the worst performing sectors (around point 8). In sectors 2-3 the beam screen heat load cooling capacity can reach 195W. The general limit is 160W
In 2016 - 94.4% availability. If you exclude users and supply, it achieves 98.6%.
2015 - total downtime 273 hours
2016 - total downtime 79 hours
this improvement comes from four effects;
Overall around 60% of downtime was due to PLC failures, this is a known issue for some time.
4.5K - 1 x human factors, 2 x PLC
1.8K - 1 x mechanical failure, 1 x AMB CC
Helium Losses
Beam Screen Heat Load
2017 plans:
J. Wenninger- is the triplet limit 2.0e34 or 1.7e34?
K. Brodzinski - the limit is really 1.7e34. After the tests carried out, a baseine of 300W heat load on triplet was expected, but once the re-calibration correcting factor was added, the actual load managed was only 240-250W. There is still room for improvement, 1.75e34 is something that is known, and can be done. To reach 2.0e34 tuning is needed.
Sources of Premature Beam Aborts - I. Romera / M. Zelauth
86 fills were aborted, a pareto of these has three large contributors:
Technical Services x 27:
Power converters x 15
Beam Losses / Unidentified Falling Objects (UFOs) x 14
Remaining
Small counts; interesting cases are:
There is no correlation obvious.
Conclusions
everything looks random, bottom of the bathtub curve!
G. Arduini - for the power converters which have a possible radiation effect, five out of six are in point 5 RRs.
M. Zerlauth - this is the case, these are planned to be changed, first by replacing the controller (FGClite) and then the converter power part.
S. Danzeca - the events in RR53 / 57, happen when the TCL settings are "closed", when the TCL are opened there are no events.
A. Lechner - concerning the UFO for the IR, thresholds have already been increased for the year.
B. Goddard - putting the last presentations together, it's remarkable that there was only one dump from the dump kickers, and the dilution systems. This is due to the reliability run, which has shown to be clearly beneficial.
The LHC exhibited unprecedented availability during the 2016 proton run, producing more than 40 fb-1 of integrated luminosity, significantly above the original target of 25 fb-1. This was achieved while running steadily with a peak luminosity above the design target of 1e34 cm-2s-1. Individual system performance and an increased experience with the machine were fundamental to achieve these goals, following the consolidations and improvements deployed during the Long Shutdown 1 and the Year End Technical stop in 2015. In this presentation the 2016 LHC availability statistics for the proton run are presented and discussed, with a focus on the top contributors to downtime.
• Split the TI events leading to unavailability into the relevant systems / sub-systems
• Breakdown the downtime with respect to each, analysing with respect as TIOC sees fit.
• Identifying the measures that are put in place with respect to these.
• Identifying the measures & mitigations that could be foreseen for 2017
• Making observations versus 2015
• Split the injector events leading to unavailability into the relevant systems / sub-systems
• Breakdown the downtime with respect to each, analysing with respect to the injector machines.
• Identifying the measures that are put in place with respect to these.
• Identifying the measures & mitigations that could be foreseen for 2017
• Making observations versus 2015
• Split the cryogenic events leading to unavailability into the relevant systems / sub-systems
• Breakdown the downtime with respect to each.
• Identifying the measures that are put in place.
• Identifying the measures & mitigations that could be foreseen for 2017
• Making observations versus 2015
• Analysing the beam aborts from 2016
• Breakdown the beam aborts into root causes.
• Expand each root cause and make observations vis-a-vis their impact on operations.
• Identifying the measures & mitigations that could be foreseen for such abort causes in 2017
• Making observations versus 2015.
Principally:
FMCM, UFO, Power Converter Trips, Single Event Effects
Main points to be addressed:
• Achieved beta-beating and DQmin level
• IP beta and waist uncertainties
• Linear optics and coupling reproducibility and evolution (Run 1 vs Run 2)
• Status of the automatic coupling correction (DOROS, ADT-AC dipole)
• Possible efficiency improvements:
o How can we speed up the process?
o How reusable are optics corrections from one year to the next?
o What could be performed by OP without expert support?
• Needs for 2017 optics commissioning
Main points to be addressed:
• Status of non-linear corrections in the LHC
• Present and future needs for IR non-linear corrections (LHC, HL-LHC)
o Do we need them in LHC at b*=~30cm?
• Methods and MD results
• IR non-linear corrections for operation in 2017:
o Are methods and tools ready?
o What are the requirements in terms of commissioning time?
Main points to be addressed:
• MD results (aperture, optics correction, chromatic properties, b reach,
collimation, etc.)
• Is it ready for 2017 physics?
o Any limitation left? (phase advance MKD-TCT, CT-PPS/AFP normalised
dispersion)?
• Improvements or expected-problems with other operation modes:
o High and intermediate b runs (forward physics in 2017 and beyond)
o Ion operation (IP2 squeeze)
• Future MD plans (flat, LR beam-beam compensation with octupoles?)
Main points to be addressed:
• Overview on 2016 performance (and comparison vs 2015)
o Reminder of settings throughout the cycle
o Cleaning (Run1 vs Run 2)
o Aperture measurements
o Effects of MKD-TCT change of phase advance in 2016
• MDs (potential improvements for next year):
o tighter collimation settings à hierarchy limit
• Brief recap on ion experience
• (MDs for further future: crystals, active halo control)
Main points to be addressed:
• Different methods for lifetime estimation
• Losses in the different phases of the cycle
• Plane decomposition
• Comparison against Run 1
This talk will discuss the LHC control system performance during 2016 operation. In retrospect, which controls facilities, if any, were missing and what could be improved? How did we perform on follow-up of requests from Evian 2015? An analysis will be made of human errors committed while interacting with the control system and possible mitigation measures. Looking forward to EYETS, the planned control system changes and their impact will be presented.
Most of the time, for the daily operation of the LHC, dedicated operational applications are used, whereas the expert have their own applications to control their equipment, do specific machine developments and studies. In some cases, these expert applications need to be used by the operation’s team, even if not really adapted. This presentation will demonstrate why this systematic split between “operational” and “expert” applications implies a lot of disadvantages. In addition, commons problems and requirements which are easily identified in all groups are shown. Finally it will propose an alternative approach to overcome these issues.
The availability of the LHC control system has been excellent in 2016 with only 0.11% of the machine unavailability attributed to Controls. Nevertheless, many other criteria can be maximised in order to improve the LHC control system and this talk focuses on the user experience. After having identified the main users, we detail some of the perceived problems, e.g. long development cycles, and areas where improvements can be done such as the interface standardization and integrated tooling. Finally, we propose organizational and technical solutions that we want to apply in the near future to try and optimise the user experience.
The Accelerator Control system is developed by the Controls Group in collaboration with numerous software developers from equipment groups to provide equipment experts and operation crews with general and specific control and supervision software. This presentation proposes a review of the different strategies applied for testing, validation and deployment of software products. The risk and the impact of these strategies on the LHC performance and availability will be studied, and possible evolutions to continuously improve
this performance will be discussed.
LHC operation in 2016 was limited by the constraints on the maximum allowed intensity in the SPS due to the vacuum leak at the internal dump. The present baseline foresees the replacement of the TIDVG with a new upgraded hardware during the upcoming EYETS. This would allow providing nominal 25 ns to the LHC as well as beams with a brightness well beyond design. Nevertheless, the consequences of an accidental impact of such beams on the intercepting devices in the SPS-to-LHC transfer lines and in the LHC injection regions have to be carefully evaluated. At the same time potential dangers related to faults during the extraction of high intensity beams at top energy have to be taken into account.
The survival of all the protection elements and the downstream machine components have to be insured for every operational scenario. Past and present assumptions on possible failure scenarios, their likelihood and effects are reviewed together with the estimated damage limits. Potential intensity and performance limitations are therefore derived for the 2017 run in view of the specific beams available.
Substantial upgrades were carried out to the MKI beam screen during LS1: as a result MKI heating has not limited LHC operation since LS1, and is not expected to do so during Run 2. Similarly, during LS1, the vacuum systems on the interconnects between MKI magnets were upgraded: as a result there haven’t been any issues with SIS vacuum thresholds on the interconnects between adjacent MKIs. However, during 2016, dynamic pressure increase on the MKI8D-Q5 interconnect limited the number of bunches that could be injected for Beam 2. The MKI2D kicker magnet caused several issues during 2016, including limiting the length of the field pulse from August onwards and a high impedance contact from October. As a result of the high impedance contact the MKI2D was exchanged during TS3. During November the Surveillance Voltage Monitoring system interlocked the MKI2 installation on several occasions.
This presentation reviews the MKI performance during 2016, the plans for the EYETS and the expected performance during 2017.
In this contribution the strategy for the initial intensity ramp-up, the ramp-ups after stops, the machine protection validations (loss maps and asynchronous beam dump tests) will be reviewed and improvements proposed. The experience of operating the LHC with single vital systems running in a not nominal but degraded mode will be addressed on the basis of two examples. The identification of a new fast failure case, causing a rather small vertical kick on the beam will be presented. Finally the experience with MDs is reviewed from a machine protection point of view.
In 2016, the thresholds of more than half of the BLMs connected to the BIS were changed throughout the year. Many of the changes were in one or another way related to UFOs. This presentation summarizes the UFO trends, the number of UFO-induced dumps and quenches in 2015 and 2016, and shows how dumps were distributed between arcs and straight sections. The impact of 2016 threshold changes on the number of dumps in the arcs is analyzed and it is estimated how many dumps and quenches would have occurred if other threshold strategies would have been adopted. The presentation concludes with a brief summary of non-UFO-related threshold changes and an outlook for 2017.
During 2016 operation, all beam dump requests were properly executed by the LBDS. Nevertheless ,many redundant failures in LBDS subsystems occurred, leading to LHC downtime. In this talk, some LBDS operational statistics for 2015 and 2016 are compared. Details are given on the main recurrent failures of LBDS and the foreseen corrective actions. The various Reliability runs and Dry-runs planned for the EYETS are explained, as well as the LBDS needs for cold-checkout and recommissioning at startup
The LHC quench protection system consisting of more than 13000 quench detectors and more than 6000 actuators (quench heater power supplies and energy extraction systems) reached an impact availability of 99.49% during the 2016 proton run. This is an improvement by 80% compared to the 2015 figures. Changes to the systems in the YETS 2015/16 comprise the introduction of the new radiation tolerant 600A quench detectors in the RR-areas as well as an firmware update of the crate controllers of the nQPS system throughout the tunnel. Preventive maintenance had been performed on all 13kA energy extraction systems as well as on selected 600A energy extraction systems. The 2016 performance is compared system by system to the 2015 figures. Radiation to electronics effects, a big issue in 2015, has not lead to a false trigger of a quench detector in 2016 although two crate controllers might have been affected during the proton-ion run. An outlook on the activities in EYETS 2016/17 as well as LS2 is given.
The commissioning experience of the LHC collimation system in 2016 is reviewed together with the hardware performance. Despite of the limited changes in hardware and software, the time spent in commissioning, set up and qualification activities has been reduced thanks to system upgrades like the deployment of 100 Hz BLM logging for collimator alignment and detailed commissioning of embedded BPMs. In particular, the reliability and stability shown by embedded BPMs allowed to systematically align TCT collimators and accommodate beam manipulations at the IPs; furthermore, following the gained experience, a proposal of SIS interlock based on the readout of embedded BPMs is made. The LHC collimation system experienced a limited number of faults, which is reported. Hardware changes foreseen for EYETS 2016, mainly dedicated to MD activities, are outlined.
During the winter 2016/2017 the LHC will undertake a period of maintenance, the so-called Extended Year Stop (EYETS). Many activities will be performed during this period to solve issues as well as to increase the LHC performance. One of the main activities is the exchange of a weak magnet in sector 12. This involves warm up of the sector, magnet exchange, cool down and subsequent recommissioning, including magnet re-training. The delicate phase of recovery from the long stop and recommissioning the LHC after all interventions will be discussed.