Hi Lumi Inner Triplets protection reliability and availability

Hi. Lumi Inner Triplets protection: reliability and availability A. Apollonio, T. Cartier-Michaud Acknowledgements: D. Carrillo, R. Denz, M. Leon Lopez, E. Ravaioli, F. Rodriguez Mateos, J. Steckert, J. Uythoven, A. Verweij 9/18/2021 1

Outline • • Target of the study Previous (main) results CLIQ only, protection ok at nominal current CLIQ and QH, protection ok at nominal current QH only, not ok at nominal current Maximum probability of failure of QDS, historic is of no use • • • Results - Confirmation of “QH only” trends - 2 triggers and monitoring of PS in trigger lines 1 trigger and no monitoring of PS in trigger lines MTTF of strips is the bottleneck - 4 oo 8 QH redundancy achieved depending on repair strategy ? Conclusion / questions - • 9/18/2021 2

Target of the study • Minimal protection of the Inner Triplet at nominal current • • • Minimal protection of the Inner Triplet below 3 k. A • • 1 oo 1 CLIQ + 0 oo 8 QH 0 oo 1 CLIQ + 7 oo 8 QH 0 oo 1 CLIQ + 4 oo 8 QH Protection validated if the probability of having a “Main Event” in any of the 4 IT is • • less than 10 % in 100 y (or 2. 6 % for 1 IT) less than 2. 1 % in 20 y (or 0. 53% for 1 IT) 9/18/2021 3

Previous results: 2019 -11 -05 New model for QDS failure rate • Mean Time To primary quench [y] 1 # primary quenches in 120 1 IT during 20 y 3 6 9 12 18 24 48 40 20 13. 3 10 6. 5 5 2. 5 Probability of failure of QDS for a balanced strategy 9/18/2021 4

Previous results Scenario name + description Pme 20 [%]: probability of having a main event in 20 years for the 4 IT. Maximum tolerated: Pme 20 = 2, 1%. Periodic maintenance = 1 y 1: Only CLIQ no QH QDS MTTF = 1 000 Pme 20 = 1. 24%; PQR = 4/y 2: Only CLIQ no QH: scan CLIQ PS QDS MTTF = 1 000 Periodic maintenance = 3 y Periodic maintenance = 5 y Pme 20 = 1. 57%; PQR = 0. 67/y Pme 20 = 2. 00%; PQR = 0. 67/y Pme 20 = 1. 51%; PQR = 1. 33/y Pme 20 = 1. 85%; PQR = 0. 67/y CLIQ PS MTTF 210 y CLIQ PS MTTF 63 y 11: CLIQ and QH (QH PS monitored) QDS MTTF = 1 000 Pme 20 = 0. 008%; PQR = 4/y Pme 20 = 0. 012%; PQR = 1. 33/y Pme 20 = 0. 019%; PQR = 0. 67/y 12: CLIQ and QH (QH PS not monitored) QDS MTTF = 1 000 Pme 20 = 0. 011%; PQR = 4/y Pme 20 = 0. 011%; PQR = 0. 67/y Pme 20 = 0. 018%; PQR = 0. 44/y Pme 20 = 0. 006%; PQR = 0. 67/y (low statistics) Pme 20 = 0. 019%; PQR = 0. 67/y (low statistics) Pme 20 = 79. 4%; PQR = 4/y (low statistics) Pme 20 = 81. 5%; PQR = 4/y (low statistics) 13: CLIQ and QH (11 T design) QDS MTTF = 1 000 21: Only QH no CLIQ (QH PS monitored) QDS MTTF = 1 000 Pme 20 =79. 1%; PQR = 4/y (low statistics) 9/18/2021 5

QH only: impact of triggers and PS monitoring QH only not ok Impact of 1 or 2 trigger not important Strip MTTF = 350 y Impact of PS monitoring not important One magnet quenching implies the 5 neighboring magnet have to quench, actual number of quenched magnets is 6 times higher 9/18/2021 6

QH architectures 24 V PS (trigger lines) monitored 2 triggers 9/18/2021 24 V PS (trigger lines) not monitored 1 trigger 7

QH architectures 24 V PS (trigger lines) monitored 2 triggers 24 V PS (trigger lines) not monitored 1 trigger • Impact of QDS is low (negligible here) • Without charger QH can still protect a few minutes Detection and prevention 9/18/2021 8

QH architectures 24 V PS (trigger lines) monitored 2 triggers 24 V PS (trigger lines) not monitored 1 trigger • Impact of QDS is low (negligible here) • Without charger QH can still protect a few minutes Detection and prevention 9/18/2021 • Triggering • Energy • Acting 9

QH architectures • First simulations used MTTF estimated by experts • • • MTTF ~ 5 – 50 years for components in “triggering box” MTTF ~ 400 years for “triggering box” due to redundancy MTTF = 350 years for the strips (4928 units working during 7 years and counting 10 failures MTTF = 3500; considering the new tech. MTTF = 350 New simulations use MTTF from historical data for “triggering box” components MTTF ~ 10 000 – 100 000 years down to MTTF ~ 1 000 – 10 000 years to be more confident • Strip unique point of failure, blind failure, low MTTF 9/18/2021 10

QH only: impact of triggers and PS monitoring Strip MTTF = 350 y One magnet quenching implies the 5 neighboring magnet have to quench, actual number of quenched magnets is 6 times higher 9/18/2021 11

QH only: impact of triggers and PS monitoring Strip MTTF = 1050 y One magnet quenching implies the 5 neighboring magnet have to quench, actual number of quenched magnets is 6 times higher 9/18/2021 12

QH only: impact of triggers and PS monitoring Strip MTTF = 3500 y One magnet quenching implies the 5 neighboring magnet have to quench, actual number of quenched magnets is 6 times higher 9/18/2021 13

QH only: impact of triggers and PS monitoring “nominal MTTF” for strip on the previous technology About to be ok Strip MTTF = 3500 y One magnet quenching implies the 5 neighboring magnet have to quench, actual number of quenched magnets is 6 times higher 9/18/2021 14

QH only: impact of triggers and PS monitoring Strip MTTF = 10500 y “ 3 x nominal MTTF” for strip on the previous technology Ok ! One magnet quenching implies the 5 neighboring magnet have to quench, actual number of quenched magnets is 6 times higher 9/18/2021 15

How to estimate the MTTF of strips ? 9/18/2021 16

How many QH ready on average ? • Monitoring of the number of QHs ready when a need for protection occurs Monitoring of the number of strips when a need for protection occurs • Percentage of different possible states for a unique magnet (oo 6 per IT) : MTTF = 3500 350 • • • 8 oo 8 7 oo 8 6 oo 8 5 oo 8 QH 82. 0 % 17. 7 % 0. 26 % <0. 1 % Strip 82. 1 % 17. 7 % 0. 24 % <0. 1 % QH 97. 6 % 2. 3 % <0. 1 % Strip 97. 7 % 2. 3 % <0. 1 % When replacing a magnet at 7 oo 8 strips dead very unlikely to go bellow 4 oo 8 QH ready Probability of QH not ready ~= probability of strip not ready, even at 3500 9/18/2021 17

Summary • CLIQ only, protection ok at nominal current • QH only, protection ok at nominal current if MTTF of strips >> 3500 y how to estimate this value ? how to estimate MTTF of CLIQ’s lead ? (“ 11 T design” vs “ 2 triggers+monitoring” is second order) • QH only, protection ok at low current if replacement of magnet at 1 oo 8 strips dead need for new simulations to get study strategy • Maximum probability of failure of QDS, historic is of no use 9/18/2021 18

Thank you for your attention 9/18/2021 19

Back up slides 9/18/2021 20

QH MTTF= MTTF observed in DQHDS history / 10 pessimistic assumption QH: HISTORY PS 24 V trigger TH charger capacitor strip cur. breaker MTTF [y] 2 100 4 200 8 400 4 200 25 200 350 700 MTTR [h] 5 5 5 Change magnet 5 # in 4 IT 384 384 192 1152 192 CLIQ MTTF= MTTF observed in DQHDS history / 100 pessimistic assumption CLIQ: GUESS PS 24 V trigger TH charger capacitor Lead cur. breaker MTTF [y] 6. 5 400 840 420 2 520 35 000 700 MTTR [h] 5 5 5 Change magnet 5 # in 4 IT 48 48 48 24 96 24 48 DQHDS 11 T control power strips MTTF [y] 42 000 470 345 Type of faults blind monitored blind 9/18/2021 Finer description: more boxes More pessimistic values: monitored failures with higher MTTF blind failures with lower MTTF 21

Parameter estimation: aging ? Estimation of MTTF = period x number of elements / number of faults No aging effect What if aging phenomena appear at 15 y lifetime ? Unacceptable aging Dangerous aging Acceptable aging 9/18/2021 Prediction requirement: 20 y • Available data: 7 y life time • 22

Requirements: # of quenches ? • Phase 1: individual training outside tunnel Once in the lifetime, 4 -12 quenches per magnet in 1 month rate of 28 – 84 quenches / year / per magnet during 1 month MTTF [y] of one magnet: 0. 036 – 0. 12 • Phase 2: commissioning of triplets After each long shutdown, 1 -3 quenches per triplet in 1 month rate of 7 – 21 quenches / year / per triplet during 1 month MTTF [y] of one magnet considering 6 magnets have to be protected in an IT: 0. 85 – 0. 30 • Phase 3: operation ~20 years of lifetime, 0. 25 - 1 quench per triplet per year MTTF [y] of one magnet considering 6 magnets have to be protected in an IT: 24 – 6 9/18/2021 23

System architecture: CLIQ F 3 or F 4 or F 3 24 V PS 1 24 V PS 2 Trigger 1 Trigger 2 TH 2 Monitored Hardware charger C 1 C 2 C 3 C 4 TH 1 QDS 9/18/2021 lead Magnet 24

System architecture: QH F 3 or F 4 a, b, c or d F 4 or F 3 a, b, c or d 24 V PS 1 24 V PS 2 Trigger 1 Trigger 2 Monitored Hardware charger C 1 TH 1 C 2 C 3 C 4 C 5 C 6 TH 2 QDS 9/18/2021 strip Magnet 25

System architecture: QH (PS no monitored) F 3 or F 4 a, b, c or d F 4 or F 3 a, b, c or d 24 V PS 1 24 V PS 2 Trigger 1 Trigger 2 Monitored Hardware charger C 1 TH 1 C 2 C 3 C 4 C 5 C 6 TH 2 QDS 9/18/2021 strip Magnet 26

System architecture: QH (PS no monitored) F 3 or F 4 a, b, c or d F 4 or F 3 a, b, c or d 24 V PS 1 24 V PS 2 Monitored Hardware charger Trigger 1 C 1 TH 1 C 2 C 3 C 4 C 5 C 6 TH 2 QDS 9/18/2021 strip Magnet 27