Choose timezone
Your profile timezone:
MP3 meeting
Participants
Adriaan Rijllart
Andrzej SIEMKO
Antonio Perin
Boris Bellesia
Ezio Todesco
Gianluigi Arduini
Giorgio D'Angelo
Jean-Philippe Tock
Jim Strait
Marco Zanetti
Markus Zerlauth
Michele Modena
Mike Koratzinos
Mirko Pojer
Robert Henry Flora
Rüdiger Schmidt
Sandrine Le Naour
Solfaroli Camillocci Matteo
Thiesen Hugues
Walter Venturini Delsolaro
MP3 meeting 5 May 2009
General information
Boris showed the link to the repository of the powering procedures filesReport on the status and open issues of the PGC procedure- (Boris)
Boris started his presentation (see slides) by reviewing the procedure used in 2008.
The PGC test is divided into 4 parts with the following goals respectively: EMC assessment, validation of the DFBs, validation of the squeeze functions, final check of the whole machine. During the presentation several questions were raised concerning the rationale behind the different test steps.
Hugues asked whether the RQF and RQD circuits were interlocked to each other. Markus answered that it is not the case.
This means that nothing prevents from having one aperture powered at full current while the other is not powered. On the other hand the test procedure for these circuits specifies that above 2 kA they must be powered together. This is done out of caution as the consequences of asymmetric powering have not been fully investigated, although it is probably not a problem neither from the point of view of e.m. forces nor from that of field quality.
Gianluigi asked whether an interlocking mechanism was foreseen, Markus answered again no. He added that at this stage, this would be difficult to implement in the PLCs, but it could be done more easily with some sort of software interlock (monitored by the sequencer or something else).
Jean Philippe observed that the test is useless until the software is available, adding that the software can be tested at low current. Furthermore it was agreed to move this test into the “individual" powering procedure for the RQF/RQD.
Apart from the PGC test, the only scenario when this could happen in operation would be an internal fault of the power converter.
ACTION –> Hugues looks at this issue and reports back to this meeting..
On the proposal to skip the test in PGC1 that checks the GPM with current, there was a discussion on whether this should be done as well in sector 34: finally it was concluded that the step can be skipped everywhere, because the functionality is tested in PIC2 and the presence of current is not really relevant in this case.
On EMC checks of FPA in 600 A circuits, it was discussed whether one of the two test steps (on flat top and on the ramp) was more conservative and could encopass both. No agreement.
Concerning the sequence of circuits to trigger, it appeared that there are two priority lists, produced by Rob W. and by Walter respectively.
The criterion for the latter is the increasing self field change in the bus bars at extraction, which is not the same as the time constant of the magnets.
ACTION –> Walter and Rob to clarify the point..
Boris asked what we do if and when coupling is revealed.
Andrzej answered that for the moment nothing can be done, but knowing it we can think of solutions for the long term.
The PGC2 part in 2008 consisted of 3 test steps of increasingly long plateaus at high current. It was agreed to keep only the 8-hours long run, provided the relevant observables (and acceptance criteria) are added to the cycles done in PGC1 that can be used to the same end.
Concerning PCG3 and PGC4, ABP are working to define a sufficiently conservative scenario.
Walter informed that preparations are ongoing to test the removal of the separation bumps involving the MCBC, MCBY and MCBX. This is done at the level of the dry runs, but we should make sure that the hardware is commissioned according the requirements, and in general that the latter are approved by the equipment owners.
Status of the procedures- (Matteo)
Matteo informed that the procedures for 60 A, 80 A-120 A, and 600 A circuits have been sent out for engineering check in EDMS last week. There was a small mishap with the "check by" mailing list which is being corrected. ACTION –> Matteo
The other documents are not yet released for engineering check; the most urgent are those concerning the IPQ and IPDs.
Concerning the 600 A document, Markus asked whether the list of so called OLD/NEW circuits was published (the list is needed to update the MTF test plan), the answer was that the list exists but is not part of the general document. It will be published separately.
Markus asked as well whether the circuits’ parameters (ramp rates accelerations, I-PNO) had changed. The answer was that at the moment ABP has been asked to review the parameters in order to assess the absolute minimum that is needed for the next physics run. For the moment the tables in the 8 "specificities" documents are still valid.
Reported by W. Venturini Delsolaro
General information
Boris showed the link to the repository of the powering procedures files
Report on the status and open issues of the PGC procedure- (Boris)
Boris started his presentation (see slides) by reviewing the procedure used in 2008.The PGC test is divided into 4 parts with the following goals respectively: EMC assessment, validation of the DFBs, validation of the squeeze functions, final check of the whole machine. During the presentation several questions were raised concerning the rationale behind the different test steps.
Hugues asked whether the RQF and RQD circuits were interlocked to each other. Markus answered that it is not the case.
This means that nothing prevents from having one aperture powered at full current while the other is not powered. On the other hand the test procedure for these circuits specifies that above 2 kA they must be powered together. This is done out of caution as the consequences of asymmetric powering have not been fully investigated, although it is probably not a problem neither from the point of view of e.m. forces nor from that of field quality.
Gianluigi asked whether an interlocking mechanism was foreseen, Markus answered again no. He added that at this stage, this would be difficult to implement in the PLCs, but it could be done more easily with some sort of software interlock (monitored by the sequencer or something else).
Jean Philippe observed that the test is useless until the software is available, adding that the software can be tested at low current. Furthermore it was agreed to move this test into the “individual" powering procedure for the RQF/RQD.
Apart from the PGC test, the only scenario when this could happen in operation would be an internal fault of the power converter.
ACTION –> Hugues looks at this issue and reports back to this meeting..
On the proposal to skip the test in PGC1 that checks the GPM with current, there was a discussion on whether this should be done as well in sector 34: finally it was concluded that the step can be skipped everywhere, because the functionality is tested in PIC2 and the presence of current is not really relevant in this case.
On EMC checks of FPA in 600 A circuits, it was discussed whether one of the two test steps (on flat top and on the ramp) was more conservative and could encopass both. No agreement.
Concerning the sequence of circuits to trigger, it appeared that there are two priority lists, produced by Rob W. and by Walter respectively.
The criterion for the latter is the increasing self field change in the bus bars at extraction, which is not the same as the time constant of the magnets.
ACTION –> Walter and Rob to clarify the point..
Boris asked what we do if and when coupling is revealed.
Andrzej answered that for the moment nothing can be done, but knowing it we can think of solutions for the long term.
The PGC2 part in 2008 consisted of 3 test steps of increasingly long plateaus at high current. It was agreed to keep only the 8-hours long run, provided the relevant observables (and acceptance criteria) are added to the cycles done in PGC1 that can be used to the same end.
Concerning PCG3 and PGC4, ABP are working to define a sufficiently conservative scenario.
Walter informed that preparations are ongoing to test the removal of the separation bumps involving the MCBC, MCBY and MCBX. This is done at the level of the dry runs, but we should make sure that the hardware is commissioned according the requirements, and in general that the latter are approved by the equipment owners.
Status of the procedures- (Matteo)
Matteo informed that the procedures for 60 A, 80 A-120 A, and 600 A circuits have been sent out for engineering check in EDMS last week. There was a small mishap with the "check by" mailing list which is being corrected. ACTION –> Matteo
The other documents are not yet released for engineering check; the most urgent are those concerning the IPQ and IPDs.
Concerning the 600 A document, Markus asked whether the list of so called OLD/NEW circuits was published (the list is needed to update the MTF test plan), the answer was that the list exists but is not part of the general document. It will be published separately.
Markus asked as well whether the circuits’ parameters (ramp rates accelerations, I-PNO) had changed. The answer was that at the moment ABP has been asked to review the parameters in order to assess the absolute minimum that is needed for the next physics run. For the moment the tables in the 8 "specificities" documents are still valid.
Reported by W. Venturini Delsolaro
There are minutes attached to this event.
Show them.
The agenda of this meeting is empty