1 / 17

B EAM L OSS M ONITORS DEPENDABILITY

SIL Approach. Electronic. Our Situation. Radiations. Tests. Dump Levels. B EAM L OSS M ONITORS DEPENDABILITY. Internal review. SIL Approach. Electronic. Our Situation. Radiations. Tests. Dump Levels. Basic Concepts. System fault events.

price-grant
Download Presentation

B EAM L OSS M ONITORS DEPENDABILITY

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. SIL Approach Electronic Our Situation Radiations Tests Dump Levels BEAM LOSS MONITORS DEPENDABILITY Internal review BLM Dependability. G.Guaglio

  2. SIL Approach Electronic Our Situation Radiations Tests Dump Levels Basic Concepts System fault events • BLM are designed to prevent the Magnet Destruction (MaDe) due to an high loss (~ 30 downtime days). Preferably the quenches too (~ 5-10 downtime hour). • BLM should avoid False Dumps (FaDu) (~ 3-5 downtime hours). • Use of Safety Integrity Level (SIL), IEC 61508. BLM Dependability. G.Guaglio

  3. SIL Approach Electronic Our Situation Radiations Tests Dump Levels Sil Approach 1/4 Event likelihood (both) 100 destructive losses/year BLM Dependability. G.Guaglio

  4. Category Injury to personnel Damage to equipment Criteria N. fatalities (indicative) CHF Loss Downtime Catastrophic Events capable of resulting in one or more fatalities 1 > 5*107 > 6 months Events capable of resulting in very serious injuries 0.1 (or 1 over 10 accidents) 106 – 5*107 20 days to 6 months Events which may lead to serious injuries 0.01 (or 1 over 100 accidents) 105 – 106 3 to 20 days Major Severe Events which may lead to minor injuries 0.001 (or 1 over 1000 accidents) 0 – 105 < 3 days Minor SIL Approach Electronic Our Situation Radiations Tests Dump Levels Sil Approach 2/4 Consequences MaDe FaDu BLM Dependability. G.Guaglio

  5. SIL Approach Electronic Our Situation Radiations Tests Dump Levels Sil Approach 3/4 SILs MaDe FaDu BLM Dependability. G.Guaglio

  6. Low demand mode of Operation ( <1 year) High demand / continuous mode of operation SIL Approach Electronic Our Situation Radiations Tests Dump Levels Sil Approach 4/4 Failure probability MaDe FaDu BLM Dependability. G.Guaglio

  7. SIL Approach Electronic Our Situation Radiations Tests Dump Levels Front-end Electronic BLM Dependability. G.Guaglio

  8. SIL Approach Electronic Our Situation Radiations Tests Dump Levels Back-end Electronic BLM Dependability. G.Guaglio

  9. SIL Approach Electronic Our Situation Radiations Tests Dump Levels Our Layout Transmitter Optical link Receiver DUMP Energy input UPS Detector Transmitter Optical link Receiver Signal ELEMENT l [1/h] inspection [h] Ionization Chamber + 400m cable 2.58E-08 20 Continuous with bias current Amplifier (CFC) 2.78E-08 20 continuous Photodiode 3.18E-08 JFET (CFC) 8.60E-08 20 Continuous with bias current 2 Optical connectors 2.00E-07 continuous Optical fiber 2.00E-07 continuous continuous FPGA RX 6.99E-07 continuous UPS 1.00E-06 FPGA TX 2.02E-06 continuous continuous Laser 8.46E-06 BLM Dependability. G.Guaglio

  10. SIL Approach Electronic Our Situation Radiations Tests Dump Levels MaDe Transmitter Optical link Receiver DUMP Energy input UPS Detector Transmitter Optical link Receiver If it fails, our procedure dumps! (FaDu) Signal PMaDi ~ PS + QBLM + Pen- + QDUMP Probability to have a Magnet Disruption Probability not to detect the dangerous loss Unavailability of the BLM system Probability to underestimate the beam energy Unavailability of the DUMP system < 10-7 /h 4.96 10-7/h ? ? Threshold levels (FaDu) BLM Dependability. G.Guaglio

  11. SIL Approach Electronic Our Situation Radiations Tests Dump Levels FaDu Transmitter Optical link Receiver DUMP Energy input UPS Detector Transmitter Optical link Receiver wFaDu ~ ( wTHR + wBLM + wen+ ) * 3200 Frequency of False Dump Frequency offalse dump signal Frequency of failure of BLM system+UPS Frequency of overestimation of the beam energy Number of channels < 3*10-10 /h < 10-6/h ? 1.24 10-6/h ? BLM Dependability. G.Guaglio

  12. SIL Approach Electronic Our Situation Radiations Tests Dump Levels Risk Matrix 1/2 • Foreseen failure rate: • MaDi: 4.96 10-7/h * 4000 h/y * 100 = 0.2/y Probable Dangerous losses per years Beam hours: 200 d*20 h/d • FaDu: 1.24 10-6/h * 4000 h/y * 3200= 16/y Frequent Number of channels BLM Dependability. G.Guaglio

  13. Frequency Consequence Catastrophic Major Severe Minor Frequent I I I II Probable I I II III Occasional I II III III Remote II II III IV Improbable II III IV IV Negligible / Not Credible III IV IV IV SIL Approach Electronic Our Situation Radiations Tests Dump Levels Risk Matrix 2/2 MaDe FaDu We are beyond the border !! • Intolerable. • Tolerable if risk reduction is impracticable or if costs are disproportionate. • Tolerable if risk reduction cost exceeds improvement. • Acceptable. BLM Dependability. G.Guaglio

  14. SIL Approach Electronic Our Situation Radiations Tests Dump Levels Event occurrence 1/2 No continuous signal FaDu frequency: 1.24E-6/h*4000h/y*3200= 16 FaDu/y MaDe risk: 2.6E-6/h*4000h/y*100danger/y ~ 1 Magnet/y Not acceptable!! BLM Dependability. G.Guaglio

  15. SIL Approach Electronic Our Situation Radiations Tests Dump Levels Event occurrence 2/2 Continuous signal FaDu frequency: 1.24E-6/h*4000h/y*3200= 16 FaDu/y MaDe risk: 4.96E-7/h*4000h/y*100danger/y ~0.2 Magnet/y Better... BLM Dependability. G.Guaglio

  16. SIL Approach Electronic Our Situation Radiations Tests Dump Levels Simulations • Possibilities: • Multiple losses: great reduction of MaDe. • Losses fingerprint: better definition of the position. BLM Dependability. G.Guaglio

  17. SIL Approach Electronic Our Situation Radiations Tests Dump Levels Partial conclusions • We are on the border but: • Probable multi-detection per loss (further simulations). • Possible improving with continuous IC detection. • Improving with better electronic components. BLM Dependability. G.Guaglio

More Related