instrumentation and controls ‘global group 2’ update since snowmass thursday, december 8, 2005...

Instrumentation and Controls‘Global Group 2’ Update since

SnowmassThursday, December 8, 2005

Marc Ross (SLAC), for Hans Braun (CERN), Junji Urakawa (KEK), convenors.

GG2 BCD document:“…represent place-holders……not intended to be as complete… …expected to evolve… …not necessarily reflect the status of the Baseline Configuration…”

• Sub-sections:– Controls Standard Architecture, Timing System, Diagnostic

Interlock Layer, Global Network, Machine Protection, Low level RF, Feedback

– Integration with Instrumentation, Machine Detector Interface

– Instrumentation – BPM, Beam profile monitors, Other (intensity, loss, ring)

• GG2 ILC ‘wiki’: http://www.linearcollider.org/wiki/doku.php?id=ilc_controls:ilc_controls_home– thanks to ANL/FNAL

http://www.linearcollider.org/wiki/doku.php?id=ilc_controls:ilc_controls_home

http://www.linearcollider.org/wiki/doku.php?id=ilc_controls:ilc_controls_home

BCD editing: Who and Status

• John Carwardine, Frank Lenkszus, Claude Saunders, Andrew Johnson (ANL) • Hans Braun (CERN)• Ferdinand Willeke, Matthias Clausen, Stefan Simrock (DESY) • Brian Chase, Margaret Votava, Manfred Wendt (FNAL) • Junji Urukawa (KEK) • Grahame Blair (RHUL), Phillip Burrows (QMUL)• Ray Larsen, Marc Ross, Steve Smith (SLAC)

• Status:– Needs specification review and comment– Sections missing– Uneven coverage (chapter to chapter)– Uneven coverage (need Asian contributors)

08.12.2005 Instrumentation and Controls - GG2 (M. Ross)

Standard Architecture:– Key concern: Availability (co with GG3) – controls and electrical

(DC/pulsed)

• Availability Workshop Grömitz (12.2005) Conclusions:– Electronics in the tunnel is untenable when:

• 1) it is untested• 2) the environment is poorly predicted understanding the above can lead to an informed judgment

– disappointing BPM performance universally reported• failures not directly detected resolution, systematic errors• (behavior not included in availSim)

– ‘High availability’ cost can be evaluated;• RD needed• (usually cost effective)

– Redundancy, rather than up-front ‘gold plating’, is key• fix the replacement time (=0), rather than the lifetime

Primary Controls BCD/RDR impact


ATCA – Advanced Telecom Computing Architecture

• Since Snowmass:– Engagement of ATCA developers

• Demonstrations / Vendor meetings / ‘Standard’ evaluation

– evaluation of ILC implementation– begin active RD:

• procurement of starter kits

• ATCA includes ‘micro-ATCA’ which is appropriate for moderate development

• contact with designers of ATCA HA software

– software and hardware

• (ANL, FNAL, DESY, SLAC)


Machine Protection

– 9 ‘section’ topics ranging from beam dynamics, instrumentation, controls, dumps and operation…

– BPM’s have to work at 1% - for pilot– How many and what kind of dumps? should have

been a ‘Snowmass-10’ Q.• Linac ‘passive’ dumps (Alt) BCD not consistent• Informally (not in BCD; proposed since Snowmass): • 2 x nominal full • 1 x 15 MW – ½ way undulator charged beam dump

– in the head-on xing, this could(?) be the back of the e+ main

• 6 x ½ MW – damping ring and BC/linac entrance• injector system – also need ½ MW class

– this is a multi-10’s M$ Q

Biggest BCD/RDR impact


LLRF• Active since Snowmass• Centers at DESY, KEK and FNAL with partners

at SLAC and universities– Priorities:

• interpret specification and distribute performance budget• parse the work effort• understand TTF performance and collaborate on

improvements are there fundamental problems?– TTC Technical board discussion

– Americas LLRF coordination Nagaitsev (RF coordinator, FNAL)

• Meet in January with FNAL engineers

Big RD/BCD/RDR impact


Beam Position Monitors Resolution / Calibration

Systematic errors:1) Offsets2) Gain errors 3) Roll error (or coupling) 4) In a cavity BPM, also coupling between position and

angle of the trajectory or pitch/yaw of the beam

• Combinations of 1-4 will depend on the intensity, beam size, bunch length, and position.

• Errors 1-4 can also depend on environmental effects – temperature, beam intensity history, electrical noise, presence of nearby bunches or satellite bunches.

Big operational impact


Utility of ‘resolution’• finding sources of instability and related failures

– a sort of insurance policy; must evaluate incremental cost

• development of ‘dither’ detection and feedback techniques– very useful at LEP / SLC / etc

• improved speed / reduced step size of beam-based calibration procedures– ‘Beam based alignment’ a poorly named BPM offset-

finding procedure – probably most utility of the above 3


BPM system cost

• resolution is the ‘easiest’ specification to meet• depending on the BPM cavity ‘loss-factor’ (signal

size), there is a cost threshold as noise figure is lowered– believed to be below 0.5 um in linac

• electronics development costs are more a concern than production costs– mechanical production cost more important

• robust system required.• RD cost…


Ongoing BPM RD at ATF, TTF, ESA:• proving cavity BPM ‘systems’ for ATF2, BDS energy

spectrometer, linac (esp ‘cleanability’), TTF HOM’s• progress since Snowmass:

– TTF HOM BPM system:• Cavity placement & BPM system• full implementation (80 channels)• installation 11.2005• expect ~um performance• 2K$/channel

– ATF2 Cavity BPM – undertest now– ESA Cavity BPM – tests begin early 06

• Development of cavity BPM ‘system’ for FEL undulator


Beam Profile Monitors (laserwire)

– design of emittance measurement system at BD entrance

• Grahame Blair draft real design document• complex interplay between technology, beam

optics, backgrounds, basic physics(?)• what are accuracy/precision requirements?

– How much space is needed for a ~few percent system?

• long system recommended; discussion needed• BCD content ?

possible long insertion


Ongoing discussion and RD• BCD:

– 3 sets DR to linac;– 3 sets in the linac (~the Euro set – 10 20 50%)– 2 sets / BD side (first one ~ high accuracy)

• Cost: – Development of 2m warm insert

• advised– Large E/δ extraction systems (WG2 BCD) ?

• Expect first precision UK laserwire scans at ATF next week• new PETRA / UK system laser• KEK optical cavity design work• SNS multi-IP, long laser transport system working visit early 06• Meeting January 30, 2006


ATF extraction line laser wire IP – single scan dimension

PETRA – two scan planes


ILC bunch ‘mechanics’

• What are the inter-bunch timing constraints?– interplay with ILC footprint, controls (MPS/timing), and

beam dynamics

• post-Snowmass:– Much misunderstanding of basic limitations– impact of undulator source decision– impact of DR kicker pulse rise/fall time asymmetry

• draft by Heiko Ehrlichmann (DESY) (12.2005)• presentation in tomorrow’s parallel session

– special invitation to hear this critical topic detailed:

conclusionsconclusionsif the overall kicker pulse length can be smallif the overall kicker pulse length can be small

and a high flexibility in operation parameter choice is requiredand a high flexibility in operation parameter choice is required

=> long damping rings with equal circumference, every bucket filled=> long damping rings with equal circumference, every bucket filled

taking into account all strong geometry restrictiontaking into account all strong geometry restriction

if the kicker pulse fall time is expected to be longif the kicker pulse fall time is expected to be long

=> gaps for the kicker pulse needs=> gaps for the kicker pulse needs

taking into account the reduced flexibilitytaking into account the reduced flexibility

HF frequency changes during the damping times could be used for shifting bunch patters HF frequency changes during the damping times could be used for shifting bunch patters between two LINAC pulses, but are not able to relax the flexibility or geometry restrictionsbetween two LINAC pulses, but are not able to relax the flexibility or geometry restrictions

Heiko’s conclusion slide:

Pioneering Science andTechnology

Office of Science U.S. Department

of Energy

Controls RD – testing and paradigm creation

• Evaluate industrial HA architecture standards for applicability to ILC electronics systems, subsystems, hardware, and software.

• Demonstrate proof-of-principle HA conceptual designs of control system backbone and representative control system applications.

• Demonstrate Diagnostics Interlock Layer prototype hardware, software, interface to control system.

• Demonstrate timing and rf master oscillator distribution system performance (dominated by BC requirements)

• Adopt appropriate facility-wide hardware and software standards for controls, instrumentation, and subsystem interfaces.

Summary


Between Controls and Instrumentation: Feedback/forward RD

• built in to the layout; – feedforward performance not demonstrated– what is needed?

• feedforward under test at ATF (QMUL)

• fast feedback: – under test at ATF– system planning DESY (XFEL) (SLS - PSI)– BPM-in-noise test at ESA

• important for IP deflection feedback BPMs

Summary


Instrumentation RD

• Test facility usage:– instrumentation a large part: dominant ‘test-beam use’– define expectations; – develop international working level partnerships

• ATF, TTF, ESA, A0, Other (smaller, proposed)• there are only 2 large pulsed SCRF machines

TTF & SNS – RD usage requests disappointingly low in both cases– we must take advantage of opportunities these large

SCRF systems provide!

• existing machines…

Summary


GG2 meetings:

January 5, 2006 Controls pre-specification analysis FNALJanuary 12, 2006 Timing design review ANLJanuary 19, 2006 feedback SLS / APS presentation ANLJanuary 26, 2006 BPMs specification review SLACFebruary 2, 2006 Instrumentation - other specification review SLAC/KEK/JAI (UK)February 9, 2006 MPS design review SLAC

February 16, 2006 LLRF RD status and plans FNALFebruary 23, 2006 Timing RD status and plans ANL

March 2, 2006 feedback SLAC / FONT SLAC / JAI (UK)March 9, 2006 BPMs RD status and plans SLAC/KEK/JAI (UK)

• weekly (started 10.2005) EU/AM adjusted• presentations from outside ILC

– SLS, CERN

• Draft agenda: (the whole year!)

• planned face – to – face meetings

Communication is key:


FNAL Organization• Fermilab interests are distributed.

– CD: Patty McBride, Margaret Votava, Vince Pavlicek– BD: Manfred Wendt (Instrumentation), Jim Patrick

(possibly), Brian Chase– TD: Jerzy Nogiec (possibly)– PD: Geoff Savage

• Controls work as part of ILCTA@FNAL: – CD: Ron Rechenmacher, Luciano Picolli, Gustavo

Cancelo– AD: Dennis Nicklaus, Sharon Lackey, Brian Chase– TD: Ruben Carcagno, Jerzy Nogiec, Andrzej Makulski

Who we are: example


Friday agenda:

• scope definition and anti-definition– GG2 / RDR matrix row interaction

• communication paths

• bunch timing ‘mechanics’ presentation– Heiko Ehrlichmann (DESY)

• RDR plans

instrumentation and controls ‘global group 2’ update since snowmass thursday, december 8, 2005...

Documents

controls gg2

gg3 controls

controls standard architecture

ring gg2 ilc wiki

junji urakawa kek

beam dynamics

beam dumpin

marc ross slac