Upload
brygid
View
25
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
MTTR & Spare Policy for the LHC Injectors Magnets for the PS Complex. T . Zickler. Outline. Introduction Scope Magnet types Typical problems and failures Interventions in 2007 Risk analysis – Method Risk analysis – Results Risk analysis – Details Conclusion and Future - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
AT
C /
AB
OC
Day
s –
Ses
sion
4
21-2
3 Ja
nuar
y 20
08.
T
h. Z
ickl
er A
T-M
CS
-MN
C
1
MTTR & Spare Policy for the LHC Injectors
Magnets for the PS Complex
T. Zickler
AT
C /
AB
OC
Day
s –
Ses
sion
4
21-2
3 Ja
nuar
y 20
08.
T
h. Z
ickl
er A
T-M
CS
-MN
C
2
IntroductionScopeMagnet typesTypical problems and failuresInterventions in 2007Risk analysis – MethodRisk analysis – ResultsRisk analysis – DetailsConclusion and Future
Thanks to A. Newborough, D. Bodart, A. Hue for their contribution
Outline
AT
C /
AB
OC
Day
s –
Ses
sion
4
21-2
3 Ja
nuar
y 20
08.
T
h. Z
ickl
er A
T-M
CS
-MN
C
3
PS- Complex: structure grown during 50 years
Linac2, Linac3, Booster, PS, LEIR, AD, Isolde, Experimental Areas, beam lines …
More than 1200 magnets, more than 200 different types
In the past: responsibility of machine superintendent No central data base
Documentation kept in ‘private’ archives
Spare components distributed all over CERN
2003: responsibility of all nc magnets successively transferred to AT-MEL
2007: start to set up nc magnet database
Unique naming system
Inventory of installed and spare magnets
Upload magnet characteristics
Gather and scan related documents (drawings, specifications, measurement reports...)
Link to layout database
Introduction
AT
C /
AB
OC
Day
s –
Ses
sion
4
21-2
3 Ja
nuar
y 20
08.
T
h. Z
ickl
er A
T-M
CS
-MN
C
4
Scope: the LHC-injector
AT
C /
AB
OC
Day
s –
Ses
sion
4
21-2
3 Ja
nuar
y 20
08.
T
h. Z
ickl
er A
T-M
CS
-MN
C
5
All types: Bending, combined function, corrector, dipole, multipole, octupole, quadrupole, sextupole, solenoid, water cooled, indirect water cooled, air cooled, iron-less, PFW, pulsed, continuous, etc…
Installed units Magnet types
Linac 2 + TL 52 14
Booster 253 15
Booster TL 70 16
PS 243 24
TT2 49 9
Linac 3 40 19
Ion Beam Lines 47 20
LEIR 44 7
Total 798 108
Magnet types
AT
C /
AB
OC
Day
s –
Ses
sion
4
21-2
3 Ja
nuar
y 20
08.
T
h. Z
ickl
er A
T-M
CS
-MN
C
6
LHC injector (PS-Complex): 800 Magnets of 108 different types
Policy:
– Systematic refurbishment of PS main magnets (106 units)
– All other: keep sufficient spare magnets and spare components (coils)
Scope: the LHC-injector
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
installed units spare units
AT
C /
AB
OC
Day
s –
Ses
sion
4
21-2
3 Ja
nuar
y 20
08.
T
h. Z
ickl
er A
T-M
CS
-MN
C
7
Typical problems and failures which occur on magnets due to aging, radiation and fatigue, which lead to repair interventions or magnet replacement:
– Water leaks in cooling circuits
– Electrical short circuits to ground
– Obstructed cooling ducts
– Degradation of coil shimming
– Broken cable insulation
– Inter-turn short circuits
Typical problems and failures
Pictures courtesy of A. Newborough and D. Bodart
AT
C /
AB
OC
Day
s –
Ses
sion
4
21-2
3 Ja
nuar
y 20
08.
T
h. Z
ickl
er A
T-M
CS
-MN
C
8
Interventions in 2007
AT
C /
AB
OC
Day
s –
Ses
sion
4
21-2
3 Ja
nuar
y 20
08.
T
h. Z
ickl
er A
T-M
CS
-MN
C
9
Risk analysis - Method
Availability of spares
1 1 new; fabrication < 10 y Complete spare units
2 2 old; fabrication > 10 y Spare coils
3 3 old; indication of degradation Spare yokes
1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
Not significant
Low risk
Medium risk
High risk
3 ≤ S ≤ 6
7 ≤ S ≤ 10
10 ≤ S ≤ 16
Acceptance
Action required
catastrophic: failure to meet scientific objectives
Risk Score S = P x I
high; air cooled; low power;
medium; water cooled; medium power
low; high power; high voltage; high flow
Reliability (design)
X
Time to repair and/or replace magnet
Time to re-establish vacuum (0 < t <10 d)
Severity of Impacts [I]
insignificant: loss of phyiscs < 1 day
moderate: less of physics < 1 week
major: physics loss < 1 month
exceptional
rare
probable
frequent
X
S ≤ 2
State (age)
Probability of Failure [P]
←no
Impact on LHC Operation
yes
MTTR (Mean Time To Recover)
Cooling down time (0 < t < 2 d)
Based on CERN Risk Management System (EDMS No. 832542)
AT
C /
AB
OC
Day
s –
Ses
sion
4
21-2
3 Ja
nuar
y 20
08.
T
h. Z
ickl
er A
T-M
CS
-MN
C
10
Risk analysis - Results
LINAC2 + TL (0/52)
Booster (109/253)
Booster TL (2/70)
PS (3/243)
TT2 (7/49)
LINAC3 (13/40)
Ion Beam Lines (15/47)
LEIR (26/44)
Total (175/798)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Insignificant
Small
Medium
High
AT
C /
AB
OC
Day
s –
Ses
sion
4
21-2
3 Ja
nuar
y 20
08.
T
h. Z
ickl
er A
T-M
CS
-MN
C
11
Risk analysis: Booster
Medium RiskMultipoles 11 ONO/XNO/QSK (Type I) 4 ONO/XNO/QNO (Type II) 1 OSK/XSK/QNO (Type III B)4 ONO/OSK/XNO/XSK (Type A) 4 OSK/XSK/DVT/DHZ (Type B)
Mitigation: produce spare units of each type
Ressources needed: 400 kCHF, 0.8 FTE*y, 1.5y delay
AT
C /
AB
OC
Day
s –
Ses
sion
4
21-2
3 Ja
nuar
y 20
08.
T
h. Z
ickl
er A
T-M
CS
-MN
C
12
Risk analysis: Booster Transfer Lines
Medium Risk: BI.DVT
Mitigation: new magnet foreseen for H- injection from Linac 4
Medium Risk: BT.BHZ10
Mitigation: find or produce spare coils
Ressources needed: 40 kCHF, 0.3 FTE*y, 1y delay
AT
C /
AB
OC
Day
s –
Ses
sion
4
21-2
3 Ja
nuar
y 20
08.
T
h. Z
ickl
er A
T-M
CS
-MN
C
13
Risk analysis: Linac 3
Medium Risk Solenoid (2)
Bruker quads (4)
Spectrometer (2)
Doublet B (2)
Triplet (3)
Bending 106º (2)
Proposed Mitigation
Produce spare coils
Produce spare coils
Produce spare coils
Produce spare coils
Produce spare coils
Produce spare coils
Costs [kCHF]
35 25 40 25 40 50
Manpower[FTE*y]
0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3
Delay[months]
12 12 12 12 12 18
AT
C /
AB
OC
Day
s –
Ses
sion
4
21-2
3 Ja
nuar
y 20
08.
T
h. Z
ickl
er A
T-M
CS
-MN
C
14
Risk analysis: LEIR
Ion pump 400 l/s
Ion pump 60 l/s
Ti
Ti
Ti
Ti
Ti
Ti
Ti
Ti
TiTi
Ti
Ti
Ti
TiTi
Ti
Ti
Ti
Ti Ti
Ti
TiTi
Ti
Ti
Ti
Ti
Ti
Ti
Ti
Ti
Ti
Ti
Ti
Ti
Ti
TiTiTiTi
Ti
Ti
Ti
Ti
TiTi
Ti
Ti
Ti Titanium sublimation pump
Pumping group (with RGA + gauges)
VV
S 2
1
VVS 11
VVS
VV
S
VVS Sector valve
VV
S 2
2
VVS 32
VV
S 4
1
Bayard-Alpert gauge
B
BB
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
BB
B
NEG’s (cartridge or coating)only shown for electron cooler
R Residual Gas Analyser
RB
Ti
R
B
B
R
R
R
R
R
Ti
BRB
B
AT-VAC, E. Page, 10.2.2004
LEIR layoutM. Chanel, E. Mahner
10.02.2004
1 m
Pictures courtesy of E. Page
Medium Risk: MC 100 (3)
Mitigation: find possible replacement magnets at CERN
Medium Risk: Main Bending (4)
Mitigation: produce spare coils
Ressources needed: 100 kCHF, 0.5 FTE*y, 1.5 y delay
Medium Risk: Main Quads (20)
Mitigation: produce spare coils
Ressources needed: 50 kCHF, 0.3 FTE*y, 1.5 y delay
Medium Risk: Skew Quads (2)
Mitigation: find spares at CERN
AT
C /
AB
OC
Day
s –
Ses
sion
4
21-2
3 Ja
nuar
y 20
08.
T
h. Z
ickl
er A
T-M
CS
-MN
C
15
Situation OK for:
Linac 2, PS, TT2
Spare situation to be improved for:
Booster, Linac 3, Ion Beam TL, LEIR
Total required: 800 kCHF, 3 FTE*y, 2 years delay
Extend magnet inventory to other machines and beam lines
CTF3, AD, Isolde, East Hall EA, n-TOF, SPS, North Area
Complete data base
Upload all relevant documents
Link to layout data base to ease maintenance and traceability
Central storage for PS Complex magnets
Regroup all spare magnets and magnet components in 150
Conclusion and Future
AT
C /
AB
OC
Day
s –
Ses
sion
4
21-2
3 Ja
nuar
y 20
08.
T
h. Z
ickl
er A
T-M
CS
-MN
C
16
Spare Slides
AT
C /
AB
OC
Day
s –
Ses
sion
4
21-2
3 Ja
nuar
y 20
08.
T
h. Z
ickl
er A
T-M
CS
-MN
C
17
Risk analysis – Results (types)
LINAC2 + TL (0/14)
Booster (5/14)
Booster TL (2/7)
PS (1/24)
TT2 (3/9)
LINAC3 (6/19)
Ion Beam Lines (7/20)
LEIR (3/7)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Insignificant
Small
Medium
High