Availability Working Group: Accelerator Fault Tracker Status & Plans for 2017

2. Availability Working Group & Accelerator Fault Tracker Status & Plans 2017 B. Todd, L. Ponce, A. Apollonio, benjamin.todd@cern.ch v1

3. Introduction • Availability is the only means to increase integrated luminosity once a machine is levelled. • LHC Availability Working Group (AWG) launched in 2012 • 2010-2012: objective view of availability not possible = weaknesses in data captured • 2012-2013: AWG proposed the Accelerator Fault Tracker to solve data issues • 2014: Accelerator Fault Tracker launched by BE/CO, BE/OP and TE/MPE • 2015: Accelerator Fault Tracker was extensivelyused for availability data analysis • 2016: Availability Working Group periodic reporting Started Where do we go from here?

4. Availability Working Group integratedluminosity is the real Key Performance Indicator coherent & objective information capture is primary concern – biggest challenge of AWG

5. Important Concepts from AWG Coherent & objective = viewpoint from both operations & equipment Operations & Equipment = “Hybrid Pareto” “Cardiogram” “Availability Matrix”

6. Cardiogram = Operations Viewpoint KPI = inversefemtobarn • Increase physics performance in stablebeams • Increase stable beams duration • Decrease turnaround time • Decrease faulttime

7. Availability Matrix = Equipment Viewpoint Typical KPI optimised by equipment groups = Mean Time Between Failures • Remove or mitigate the failure mode entirely • Make the failure lesslikely (increase reliability, …) • Make the failure have a lowerimpact (decrease repair time, decrease diagnostics time, …)

8. Hybrid Pareto = Both Viewpoints operations unavailable time equipment fault time shadow / parallel faults, … • Combined Viewpoint: • equipment fault time longer than operational unavailability • equipment fault time shorter than operational unavailability • equipment fault time zero pre-cycles, … beam events, operational errors, … Correlation of all of these is the only way to really see “availability” Equipment Group optimisation of MTBF does not mean LHC optimises inverse femtobarn

9. 2010  2012 • Manual report creation • carried out once per year • Subjective approach • Opaque process • no correlation operations vs equipment • strategic conclusions impossible to make • lag data capture to report generation • ≈0.2 FTE data processing (3 x STAFF & DOCT) = proposal for the Accelerator Fault Tracker tool (AFT)

10. Accelerator Fault Tracker LS1 = AFT launched as BE/CO, BE/OP and TE/MPE initiative Led by C. Roderick, proposed in three releases: • AFT 1.0 (2015-2016) • infrastructure to collect operations view-point data • produce cardiogram • structure foreseen to fold in equipment data • AFT 2.0 (2016-2017) • Capture data from equipment groups • Produce combined equipment and operations viewpoints • AFT 3.0 (2018+) • Connect to otherdataservices at CERN (INFOR EAM, IMPACT, LAYOUT) • fully integrated transverse view

11. 2015 • direct eLogbook extraction • One-click cardiogram • Before AFT = 2 months to cardiogram 2010 data • few seconds to get it now • correlation operations vs equipment • operations viewpoint =weekly review • equipment viewpoint = annual review • objective view possible • no lag data capture to report generation • 0830 meetings using previous day’s cardiograms • transparent approach • ≈1.5 FTE tool (BE/CO) • ≈0.25 FTE tool feedback (AWG) • ≈0.5 FTE data entry (AWG) March  November 2015 – possibility for automation of parts of this feedback

12. One-Click (ish)

13. 2016 – Periodic Reporting Technical Stop report 1 x restart & ramp up 2 x proton physics production 1 x ion physics production Process: * draft at start of TS * AWG meeting to discuss duringTS * finalised and approved by AWG after meeting annualreport * compilation of previous reports…

14. Reports So Far • create uniform means to see availability in the LHC context • propose template always followed • easy to complete • data from AFT statistics structure • AFT reproduce large parts of the report on-the-fly • simple to compile for annual report • create a permanentrecord of LHC availability • template ATS Note Restart – TS1: TS1 – TS2: TS2 – TS3: Proton Run: https://cds.cern.ch/record/2195706 https://cds.cern.ch/record/2235082 https://cds.cern.ch/record/2235079 https://cds.cern.ch/record/2237325

15. 2017 [1/2] • AFT 1.0  AFT 2.0 • Numerous open issues & tickets with BE/CO – slow progress • Attempt equipment group information integration • Attempt integration for the TIOC • AWG and BE/CO already started work • Turnaround • Often discussed metric without coherent approach or analysis • Organisedata for this, make and publish analyses as part of reporting • Improve turnaround data and analysis • AFT & AWG in the Injectors • It is possible to propagate the AFT tool • Let’s make some first attempts. • We need to define some core members for injectors who take ownership … • Andrea + Verena et al. set things in motion • Help from others is vital….

16. 2017 [2/2] • Day to Day • data validation and continuous improvement of the AFT remains a core aspect of the AWG • effort to maintain fault data increased x3 – used to be a part-time job… • dedicated resources are needed • Strategic View • information created for the LHC can be exploited for HL-LHC, FCC, … • newand existingmachines are being designed facing availability as a primary deliverable. • AFT information should be able to be used to create genericmodels • Modellingand strategic aspects are becoming more detailed and heavier to manage, with several parties involved. • The mandate of the AWG only covered the LHC. • centralised modelling & strategy elsewhere than AWG

17. Thank you!Questions? 2012 – Availability Working Group Established