Transcript Max safe level - AB-BDI-BL

Addressed questions for LTC
1. Strategy for operation of the BLM system
2. Operation with < 4000 channels available?
3. Mobile BLM?
4. Tests with beam?
MPSCWG 12/12/2007
1
Summary of previous discussions
For settings generation, BLM are grouped in families
Via an expert application, a thresholds table is generated by family and
stored in ORACLE database (family_info table).
This table and the monitor_info table are used to derived the
MASTER table, within the Database (SQL request)
The MASTER tables (one per crate) is protected and set to a so-called
”max safe value” of the different equipment (energy and integration
dependant ).
Inside the database, an APLLIED table is derived from the same
family_info and monitor_info tables AND multiplying by a factor F,
0<F≤1.
Internal check within ORACLE: APPLIED table ≤ MASTER table
Present implementation, there is one F per family
APPLIED table is sent to front-end and read back for comparing with
the one in the database on a regular basis (once/day)
MPSCWG 12/12/2007
2
Pending questions
1. Is the granularity of the predefined families fit the operational
requirement for changing thresholds?
2. If not, is there a splitting of the family which fullfill the
requirement or do we need one scaling factor per monitor?
3. Which value for the “max safe value”?:
1. Proposed value :“Safe beam flag” for cold element?
2. Damage level x margin for warm element?
4. With this strategy, MASTER table is below the damage level
for cold elements (factor 320 to 1000 between damage level and quench
level according to the beam energy, but the same constant is used)
1. too much conservative?
2. Do we want to fit better the damage level?
MPSCWG 12/12/2007
3
remarks/questions
5. Is the comparison between the APPLIED table loaded in the
front-end and the one in the database enough if ORACLE
guarantee that an internal check of APLLIED < MASTER is
done every time you generate a new APPLIED? OR do we
also want an external APLLIED in front-end < MASTER in
database?
6. The maskable/unmaskable status can be defined only at the
BLM level, without reconfiguring the BIS?
7. The masking is done at the CIBU level: you mask all the
channels connected at the same time!
•
Is it acceptable from machine protection point of view?
MPSCWG 12/12/2007
4
Proposed values for the different tables
Element
Proposed
“Max safe
level”
Safe beam
flag
Master
Table
Applied
table
Maskable/
unmaskab
le
Maskable
Number of
monitors
Max safe
value
Quench
level
LSS quad
Safe beam
flag
Max safe
value
Quench
level
Unmaskable
360
DS quad
Safe beam
flag
Max safe
value
Quench
level
Unmaskable
480
TCP,TCS%,
??
TDI, TCH,
TCLP,TCLI,T
CDQ,…
MQW, MBW Safe beam
flag
Max safe
value
Damage
level
Maskable
~330
Max safe
value
Damage
level
Maskable
60
MSI, MSD
Safe beam
flag
Max safe
value
Damage
level
Unmaskable
24+60
MBR%
Safe beam
flag
Max safe
value
Quench
level
Unmaskable
MQ, MB
MPSCWG 12/12/2007
2160
5
Element
Damage
level
Master
Table
Applied
table
Maskable/
unmaskab
le
Unmaskable
Number of
monitors
MKD, MKB
Safe beam
flag
Damage
level
Damage
level
MBX
Safe beam
flag
Damage
level
Quench
level
Unmaskable
4
TAN,TAS
?
Damage
level
Damage
level
Maskable
8
XRP
?
Damage
level
Unmaskable
9
BCM
?
Damage
level
Unmaskable
BPMSW
?
Damage
level
Maskable
MPSCWG 12/12/2007
24
8
6