1 / 22

Accelerator Parameters & Design Workshop - CLIC Interlock System Principles

Join the workshop led by Patrice Nouvel from CERN to explore the critical equipment, post-pulse analysis, interface with acquisition systems, beam permit loop architecture, and more. Dive into requirements and challenges in designing the CLIC Interlock System. Discover the principles of beam permit, redundancy, global analysis, glitch mitigation, and dependability considerations.

orrick
Download Presentation

Accelerator Parameters & Design Workshop - CLIC Interlock System Principles

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. CLIC Workshop 2013 - Accelerator / Parameters & Design activities Session - Patrice Nouvel - CERN / Institut National Polytechnique de Toulouse

  2. Topics Patrice Nouvel – January 2013

  3. Introduction Patrice Nouvel – January 2013

  4. CLIC Interlock System Principles • Critical Equipment: • Look for any equipment failures • Inhibit the next pulse => Beam Permit • Post-Pulse Analysis: • Perform beam quality analysis: assert the next pulse quality • Inhibit the next pulse => Next Cycle Permit Patrice Nouvel – January 2013

  5. Topics Patrice Nouvel – January 2013

  6. Requirements and Challenges Patrice Nouvel – January 2013

  7. Requirements and Challenges Patrice Nouvel – January 2013

  8. Topics Patrice Nouvel – January 2013

  9. Interface with acquisition system CLIC Main Linac X 22 000 CLIC Module (CLIC CDR chap 5.13 Control) Patrice Nouvel – January 2013

  10. Interface with acquisition system ** X 48 Example * • *FEC: Front-End Computer • **ACM: Acquisition and Control Module Patrice Nouvel – January 2013

  11. Beam Permit Loop • Master node: frequency generation • Other nodes (FEC): switch • Redundancy: defined regarding dependability study Design and Functions • Thresholds comparison • Standardized procedure for all data (equipment and beam quality related) • Thresholds managed as Configuration Data • Global analysis • Concentrator • Glitch mitigation, local rules (masking) Patrice Nouvel – January 2013

  12. Architecture Patrice Nouvel – January 2013

  13. Topics Patrice Nouvel – January 2013

  14. Post-Pulse Analysis at CTF3 • Feasibility of Post-Pulse Analysis and first experience • Software only (JAVA application) • Applying the Post-Pulse Analysis Concept to ramp up the beam • Related Document=> EDMS 1182876 Patrice Nouvel – January 2013

  15. Interlock Systems Prototype • Response Time • Beam permit • Post-Pulse analysis • Dependability • Node characteristics (Failure rates) • Extrapolate to determine beam permit loop redundancy Patrice Nouvel – January 2013

  16. Wrap up Patrice Nouvel – January 2013

  17. Thanks for your attention Questions and remarks are welcome

  18. Spare slides Patrice Nouvel – January 2013

  19. CLIC Layout Patrice Nouvel – January 2013

  20. CTF3 Layout Patrice Nouvel – January 2013

  21. Dependability concept definition Adapted from: “Functional Concepts of Dependability”, A.Avizienis, J.C.Laprie, B.Randell MTL Application Note: An introduction to Functional Safety and IEC 61508 Patrice Nouvel – January 2013

  22. Requirements for Control system: Machine Safety • Failure mode: data corruption on critical interlock request • Tolerable riskof 1 catastrophic event every 104years (1.39x10-13/pulse) • Method 1 (based on operational year 2011) • 48.7% of missions (10h) aborted by critical equipment failures • 6% of missions (10h) aborted by beam instabilities • Probability of Interlock request: 3x10-7/pulse • Method 2 (based on assumptions on availability) – For comparison (don’t include equipment failure) • 1 instable pulse leads to 10s downtime (interlock and ramp up) • Less 10% downtime is acceptable => 1 instable pulse every 100s • 1% of instable pulses are critical (leading to structure damage) • Probability of Interlock request due to critical instable pulse: 2x10-6/pulse • Probability of Control system to corrupt data must be lower than: • 4.6x10-7/pulse (method 1) • 7x10-8/pulse (method 2 – no equipment request) Patrice Nouvel – January 2013

More Related