LARP Accelerator Systems Status, Plans, Questions 14 January 2009 CERN-US Meeting, CERN Tom...

LARP Accelerator Systems Status, Plans, Questions

14 January 2009

CERN-US Meeting, CERN

Tom Markiewicz/SLAC

BNL - FNAL- LBNL - SLAC

US LHC Accelerator Research Program

CERN-US Mtg - 14 Jan 2009 LARP Acc.Systems - T. MarkiewiczSlide n° 2 / 34

Personal Preamble

Previous LARP leadership had the attitude“We are not a CERN job shop”

Currently, discussion shades to“Why bother if CERN’s not interested”

DOE management CONSTANTLY tells us“Fixed sum game, MANAGE, make the tough decisions, LARP can’t do

everything…”LARP programs with LARP hard deliverables have not been “on-time; on-budget”

– Luminosity Monitor, Rotatable Collimator, Roman pot for UA9– Fear of creating a similar but larger fiscal problem if begin a Crab Cavity– Need for better written handshake/documentation obvious– Impact of LHC schedule a touchy but important subject

Confusion in the minds of upper level managers between Phase I, II Lumi and Phase II collimation upgrades and LARP/APUL has created some ill willAnything this group can do to help clarify this is helpful

LARP has tried to maximize the Accelerator Systems and to draw on non-LARP (i.e. laboratory) resources with some success– Fiscal situation not maintainable & will need to downsize LARP AS program

to fund effort currently being “donated” by labs “as an investment”


Outline

• Introduce LARP Accelerator System task list and what LARP is doing to manage them and maintain communication. Invite your candid comments and clarifications– Prioritization– Grade what’s been done– Agreement on Deliverables & Milestones– Adequateness of LARP internal documentation for tasks

• Status, reports, documentation,…

– Bi-Lateral CERN/Task documentation• Technical specification of agreed deliverables, “Hand-off” criteria,

specification of level of CERN/LARP support before & after handoff

• Report on Luminosity Monitor recent history and status• Report on Rotatable Collimator• Comments on LLRF, Ecloud, Crab if time allows


Task List & FY09

Budget2.9M$

BNL FNAL LBNL SLAC Total

1 Accelerator Systems 380 311 1,005 1,205 2,901 1.1 Instrumentation Ratti 50 35 800 40 9251.1.1 Phase I 50 35 800 40 9251.1.1.1 Chromaticity Feedback Tan (15) 15 01.1.1.2 Luminosity Monitor Ratti 800 8001.1.1.4 Schottky Jansson 20 201.1.1.5 AC Dipole Bai 65 0 651.1.1.6 LLRF Fox 40 40

1.3 Collimation Markiewicz 35 101 0 985 11211.3.1 Phase I 0 0 0 0 01.3.1.1 Cleaning Efficiency Study Drees 0 01.3.2 Phase II 35 101 0 985 11211.3.2.1 Rotatable Collimators Markiewicz 950 9501.3.2.2 Tertiary Collimation Study Mokhov 01.3.2.2 Crystal Collimation Peggs 35 101 0 35 171

T980 at Tevatron Mokhov 10 76 10 96CRYSTAL at SPS Peggs 25 25 25 75

1.3.2.3 Irradiation Studies Simos 0

1.4 Accelerator Physics Fischer 295 175 205 180 855 1.4.1 Studies 295 175 205 180 855 1.4.1.1 Electron cloud Pivi - - 90 65 155

Simulations Furman - - 50 - 50 Ecloud FB at SPS Fox 40 40 80 Grooved Chambers Pivi 25 25

Beam-beam Valishev 70 130 - - 200 1.4.1.2 Simulation Sen - 110 - 110 1.4.1.3 Wire Beam-Beam compensation Fischer 50 - - - 50 1.4.1.5 Electrons lens Shiltsev 20 20 - - 40 1.4.1.4 Discretionary Markiewicz 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 100 1.4.1.6 Crab cavities Calaga 200 20 40 40 300 1.4.1.6 PS2 Studies Wienands 50 50 100


Accelerator System Tasks that have “Finished”

By end of FY07, collaboration on– Tune & Coupling feedback– Schottky Monitor– AC Dipole

resulted in installed hardware. Uniformly deemed a SUCCESS.– “Hardware” was built to LARP designs by CERN:

• no cost or schedule drama

– In FY08 LARP provided modest support for testing, improvements, software interfaces and commissioning and in FY09 the line items remain with a funds to allow ‘Beam Commissioning’

By end of FY07– RHIC Benchmarking of SIXTRACK– MARS-based study of tertiary collimators– Irradiation study of Carbon & Glidcop collimator materials

resulted in presentations & publications. Not useless, but value discussable.– Each of these STUDIES is nominally finished– The irradiation study would continue if funds were available to support it


Program Oversight

My experience as AS Program Leader in FY2008 has led to a number of actions

Form Accelerator Systems Advisory Committee to parallel Magnet Steering Comm.– Bruning, Fischer, Markiewicz, Peggs/Prebys, Ratti

ASAC meets (Webex) at least weekly on general matters or as crisis management team– New Initiative selection– Budget– Collaboration Meeting Planning– Luminosity Monitor Program Management

Structure LARP Tasks into units large enough to warrant regular WEBEX meetings and see to it that these are held with additional participation of Program Leader, Deputy, LARP Accel System managers AND CERN Points of Contact– As opposed to semi-annual reports of what Physicist X did at Lab Y for Task

Z using his/her favorite simulation code– At CMs, apathy of general LARP membership to anything they are not

personally involved in is striking & sad


Project Management

LARP Acc. Systems is producing hardware for CERN in 3 areas– Lumi Monitor– Rotatable Collimator– Roman Pot for SPS Crystal Collimation Expt #UA9

And is considering delivering a crab cavity prototype

My thoughts:– Each of these would ideally be managed outside of LARP– Annual reviews necessary but not sufficient

• Aug. 2007 Lumi review & April ’08 CM10 did not foresee June’08 ‘crisis’

– Monthly budget reporting without “earned value” necessary but not sufficient

– Lumi has convinced me that some external manager(s) must follow progress ~biweekly to fully understand the project in real time so that surprises do not happen

– TWM is trying to do this for the UA9 Roman Pots (reporting to Eric)– No one forces TWM to do this for Rotatable Collimator


CERN and LARP Communication

Occurs at various CERN levels– CERN Point(s) of Contact:

• eg. Assmann (collimation); Bravin (Lumi)– CERN middle managers: Ostijic (IR Upgrade Czar)– CERN key managers: Evans/Myers– CERN LARP contact: Oliver Bruning– CERN Director

Roughly mapping onto LARP– LARP Task Leader

• Markiewicz (Collimation); Ratti (Lumi)– LARP LAUC/APUL czar (Peggs/Wanderer)– LARP L1 (Markiewicz)– LARP Program Leader (Prebys)– OHEP (Strauss, Kovar)– US Lab leadership (Kahn-SLAC, Holmes-FNAL, Gourlay-LBL, Roser-BNL)

• Oral “story” sometimes inconsistent and full set of players never in same room• Inadequate written correspondence• Improvement in both these areas required


LARP Instrumentation Task Meetings

Chromaticity Feedback, Schottky Monitor, AC Dipole– No formal periodic meetings; assume sporadic contact with CERN

POCs; reports at parallel sessions of LARP collab mtg (CM)– No direct management oversight

Luminosity Monitor– Regular LBL staff mtgs and Ratti/Bravin mtgs during CERN trips– Biweekly status meetings with

• Prebys, Markiewicz, Bruning, Peggs, Ratti, Bravin, Corlett (LBL mgmt), 2 LBL EEs

– Full grilling by AS at CM#11 followed by plenary report to LARP

LLRF Modelling– SLAC 5 person group plus 2 CERN POCs exchange email & visits– SLAC ARD presentations ~6 weeks and CM presentation– No direct management oversight


LARP Collimation Task Meetings

Rotatable Collimator

– Weekly staff (5) mtg at SLAC with web-posted progress report

– Biweekly webex/video with CERN collimation group (5-10 people)

– Report at parallel session of CM mtg (3 people attend) & included in plenary summary (to largely apathetic audience)

Crystal Collimation

– Weekly Webex meeting to which all members of both T980 (Fermilab expt.) and CERN SPS UA9 are invited

• Typically SLAC(6), BNL(1) plus Markiewicz, Prebys, Peggs & Scandale (CERN)• Approx. monthly reports from FNAL (Mokhov) on T980

– Unknown but large number of bi-lateral UA9 meetings in Europe

– Regular meetings of FNAL T-980 staff & FNAL resident visitors

– Semi annual mini crystal workshops & LARP CM presentations

– I am personally disappointed that the synergy hopped for between these two complementary efforts is not being realized


LARP Accelerator Physics Task Meetings

Beam-Beam Simulations in support of Electron Lens & Wire Compensation– No regular meetings to my knowledge– Annual mini-wkshp (eg. 12/3/08 at BNL) & report at parallel session of CM

Ecloud: Simulations, SPS Measurements & studies, SPS Vacuum chamber insert studiy– Monthly Webex attended by CERN (3), SLAC (3) and LBL(3) and typically

Prebys & Markiewicz– Semi-annual meetings in context of global Ecloud effort (eg. EC Mitigation-

08 CERN, 12/08) and CARE series of workshops– Reports in parallel session of CM

Crab Cavity– Monthly international webex

• UK, KEK, CERN (incl. LARP-residents), BNL, SLAC, FNAL, LBL, AES• Prebys, Markiewicz, Peggs, Strait

– Annual mini-workshop, quarterly(?) mtgs at CERN, LARP CMs & CARE PS2

– Weekly/biweekly webex with BNL, FNAL, LBL & SLAC w/ Prebys & Markiewicz

– CM and CERN organized workshops


Many New Initiatives were Discussed at LARP CM#10-April 2008 BNL

The initiatives discussed were:

– LLRF Studies at LHC

– Control of Ecloud Instability in the SPS with Transverse RF Damping

– SPS Ecloud Remediation via Grooved and Coated Vacuum Chambers

– The CRYSTAL collimation test at SPS

– An Optical Diffraction Monitor for LHC

– Coherent Electron Cooling for LHC

– Collimation Studies at LBNL’s HCX facility

– Studies of Intensity Dependent Performance Limits to the LHC Injector Chain

– PS2 Studies

– Instrumentation Commissioning Proposal

– The use of PEP-II “Model Independent Analysis” at LHC

– The use of PEP-II “Phase Advance Analysis” at LHC


LARP ASAC MeetingsBruning, Fischer, Markiewicz, Peggs, Ratti

Initiatives were graded on the following topics with the first three being considered the most important factors. The CERN point of contact canvassed the relevant parties at CERN to gauge CERN interest and committee consensus was reached on the other topics based on CM#10 presentations and supporting documentation.– Impact on LHC luminosity enhancement– Level of interest by CERN– State of art use of physics or technology– Level of institutional collaboration – Time scale– Average yearly cost– University Involvement– Relevance to the US Program– Whether or not the program would be done in any event without LARP

funds– Level of CERN resources contributed to the program– Level of non-LARP US resources contributed to the program– Definite end of program with clear definition of deliverable or result


NI Decisions for Spring 2008

While the level of support LARP can provide is in most cases less than that requested by the proponents, the LARP ASAC has agreed to:– Create a LLRF Studies task under Instrumentation– Expand the scope of the existing “Electron Cloud” task to include

• Ecloud Simulations

• SPS Ecloud Feedback

• SPS Ecloud vacuum chamber study

– Support the CRYSTAL collimation experiment at the SPS as part of the existing Crystal Collimation task

– Create a new “PS2 Studies” task under Accelerator Physics whose scope still needs more definition but which will include the proposed intensity limitation to the LHC injector chain performance

Approved by LARP exec committee Sept. 2008

Prebys letter to all LARP members with announcement


Luminosity Monitors2 per IP + One Spare

Detector Interface ChassisGAS Distribution/Monitoring Panel

PC for Local Monitoring1 per IP

DAQ Firmware

Shaper (& Chassis)Preamp/HV Assembly


Luminosity Monitor Crisis & Response

As Lumi is/will be the first LARP produced hardware installed in LHC it is essential that we deliver

June 2008 letter from CERN luminosity monitoring group leader Enrico Bravin raised concern that– Lumi might be be late for 2008 run– PMT system would be deployed for 2008– As long as robust system ready for 2009, no harm

Response:1. Major LARP support in FY09, before CY2009 run, to fully complete the

system (electronics fabrication, firmware, software & integration)2. Biweekly meetings of LARP ASAC w/Ratti-Bravin since June 29, 2008

– 13 meetings held with written reports (TWM)3. Greatly increased involvement of LBL management (Corlett + EE Head)

– MS Project maintained by LBL EE & kept up to date4. Ongoing discussions on how to minimize commissioning cost & handoff


Lumi Status: All Hardware on Track for pre-April 2009 Installation & Integration

Detectors– 4 detectors in their final configuration at CERN and spare at LBL– Installation will happen upon CERN’s request

• CERN activities at point 1 and 5 currently preclude chamber installation

Preamps– Two or four needed finished– Protoype unit will be upgraded to “production” version– about 2 weeks behind schedule, but within the float allowed

Shapers– Boards ready & chassis panels back from the shops; Need integration– Plan to ship in January

Detector Interface Units (2)– Both ready to be shipped (ahead of schedule)

Gas Panels– Finished & turned over to CERN

• One FM needs to be replaced & gas monitoring software tweaked

Firmware– Phase I (Low Luminosity “Counting”) complete– Phase II (High Lum pulse height with centroid deconvolution) a future project


Points for Discussion: Luminosity Monitor

Satisfaction with currently planned production and schedule

Level and duration of continued involvement of LBL team as luminosity increases

Adequacy of current and planned future documentation

Agreement on performance benchmarks for system

??

LARP Rotatable Collimators for LHC Phase II Collimation

Gene Anzalone (CAD), Eric Doyle (ME-FEA, ret.), Lew Keller (FLUKA, ret.), Steve Lundgren (ME), Tom Markiewicz (Phys), Reggie Rogers (Mech Tech)

& Jeff Smith (PD)

BNL - FNAL- LBNL - SLAC

US LHC Accelerator Research Program

1) Adapt rotatable NLC collimator design concept to LHC: “RC”

2) Build and test one collimator jaw with 10kW resistive heaters to verify thermo-mechanical performance

• Minimize deflection when absorbs with 60kW for 10 sec

3) Build a collimator that can be destructively beam tested at new TT60 facility yet which still rotates, provides clean collimation surfaces, whose cooling system survives and which is UHV

4) Build a 2nd(?) fully functional collimator & test it at LHC


Rotatable Collimator Design


Rotatable Collimator Manufacturing


RF Transition Piece and “Geneva” Rotating Drive


RC0 10kW Distortion Test


Rotating Collimator Drawing Treenot counting prototype pieces, fixtures,

redesigns, etc


RC Status

SLAC team continues to feel optimistic that a fully functional prototype can be finished in FY09. – Materials, fabrication requisitions for 3 new jaws have been placed and

some parts are in houseMechanically precise UHV parts are difficult

– Accepted 2/6 molydenum shafts with damage– In RC0, had two major machining & brazing snafus

Undermanned relative to CERN Phase II (25 FTEs over 2 years) and underfunded (8 MCHF M&S)

“Finishing” and integrating prototype with as many parts and subassemblies as RC in time will be challenging

Very good will between Assmann & TWM but need firmer handshake– TT60 prototype AND LHC prototype– Formal requirements documents

• Cu tubing versus CuNi tubing– Level of CERN support – Handoff definition– Commissioning plan


Points for Discussion: Rotatable Collimator Program

• Assmann/Markiewicz agree to a timeline for a technology decision on Phase II Secondary collimators that requires– Adequate LHC running with Phase I collimation system to understand

limitations and possible schemes to ameliorate efficiency/impedance issues

– Completion of TT60 test facility (with SLAC participation) and robustness testing of LARP RC prototype & two CERN prototypes

– Improvement of 3 designs, if indicated by TT60 tests, & installation and tests in LHC

– Final technology, lattice dependent choice of a set of secondary Phase II collimators

• Impact of any decision on “Cold Collimators” on this plan not clear• Current discussions to inclusion of any production of the 30 Phase II

secondary collimators as part of APUL and the so-called Phase I IR Upgrade not clear and generates negative comments (“I hear CERN is not interested, so why are we bothering with this”)

• Written documentation on what must be delivered, performance specifications, CERN support for delivrables, eventual continuing involvement for commisiopning, etc are sorely needed: How do we ensure task manager(s) supply this


LHC LLRF TaskJohn Fox , Claudio Rivetta, Themis Mastorides, Dan van Winkle

Why SLAC?PEP-II and LHC have same basic LLRF architectureSLAC Group has much unique expertise and well developed set of software tools developed

for PEP-II that can be used to configure the LHC system, study it and improve it

Progress in 2008Five multi-weeks trips in April, June 2008, NovemberSLAC software model configured for LHC and interfaced to control system

In post-Sept.19,2008 world, remote diagnostics more highly valued than ever

Near Term Plans8 person-weeks at CERN in CY09 for beam commissioning

Data from closed loop LLRF system with beam present will be compared against model and changes to LHC hardware configuration suggested

Expand model to include feedback & longitudinal emittance dilutionEventually, develop theory & programs to model the long-term (24 hr) behavior

CostsPredominately labor provided by SLAC Accelerator Development funds in FY08, FY09


Sample LLRF Result

Open Loop Xfer Function from time-domain excitation technique vs. model result (green)


Transverse RF Feedback in SPS to Control Beam Instabilities Produced by Electron Cloud Effects

Focus Ecloud simulation effort on effects expected in SPS that could be mitigated via techniques pioneered by US labs

SPS Ecloud dynamics studies predictHorizontal - coupled-bunch behaviorVertical - single bunch-like instability

2008 Plan (continuing in ’09)Measure & quantify Ecloud effects on beam (instrumentation)Compare measurements with E cloud/beam models

≥2009 PlanDevelop beam-FB simulation, evaluate possible feedback implementations.Propose a technical implementation & develop Engineering SpecsProof of principle experiments & technical R&D

Eventual possible LHC construction project item


Grooved Vacuum Insertion Test at the SPS for Electron Cloud Studies

Electron cloud mitigation test chambers for SPS in prep

SLAC is manufacturing two grooved insertionsMetal folding & razor blades techniques for 1mm max. height

Installation & Testing planned

Metal Folding: Form multiple folds. [EMEGA Company, USA] Brazed-up Assembly: Use individual razor type foil blades



T980 and UA9

152mm x-y Dual sided Roman Pot for UA9

manufactured by LARP/SLAC

Single-particle dynamics study brings knowledge applicable to LHC using Si tracking detectors in Roman Poys

Improved T980 Goniometer and October 2008 Channeling Results


Points for Discussion: Crab Cavity

Plan for proof of principle experiment at LHC– One cavity/cryostat system or two?– Location, available space, infrastructure, time scale for installation

& removal– Fabrication details, cost & schedule– Measurements to be made and definition of success– Management of multilab effort with LARP, CERN and industry

Relevance to final configuration– Local (2 per beam per IP) versus global– Time scale, cost, etc.– Studies (e.g. collimation)


FY09 Challenges in Accelerator Systems

Deliver Luminosity Monitor and end task

Deliver RC Prototype and scale back task

Launch Crab Cavity with correct level of effort ($), matching CERN interests & schedule

Craft and launch PS2 program

Work effectively with CERN on collimation component of APUL

Synergize T980 and UA9 crystal collimation teams and control costs of UA9 Roman Pot

Date post:	19-Jan-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	griffin-foster
View:	215 times
Download:	0 times

LARP Accelerator Systems Status, Plans, Questions 14 January 2009 CERN-US Meeting, CERN Tom...

Documents