John Carwardine 5 th June 2012 Developing a program for 9mA studies shifts in Sept 2012.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Tom Powers Practical Aspects of SRF Cavity Testing and Operations SRF Workshop 2011 Tutorial Session.
Advertisements

11/27/2007ILC Power and Cooling VM Workshop Mike Neubauer 1 RF Power and Cooling Requirements Overview from “Main Linac Power and Cooling Information”
J. Branlard ALCPG11 – March 2011 – Eugene OR, USA Results from 9mA studies on achieving flat gradients with beam loading P K |Q L studies at FLASH.
Stephen Molloy RF Group ESS Accelerator Division
On Cavity Tilt + Gradient Change (Beam Dynamics) K. Kubo K. Kubo.
1 9 mA study at FLASH on Sep., 2012 Shin MICHIZONO (KEK) LCWS12(Sep.24) Shin MICHIZONO Outline I.Achievement before Sep.2012 II.Study items for ILC III.
A U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science Laboratory Operated by The University of Chicago Argonne National Laboratory Office of Science U.S. Department.
SLAC ILC High Level RF Ray Larsen LLRF Workshop, FNAL, January 17, 2005 Rev. 1.
Proposed machine parameters Andrei Seryi July 23, 2010.
Christopher Nantista ARD R&D Status Meeting SLAC February 3, …… …… …… … ….
Proposed TDR baseline LLRF design J. Carwardine, 22 May 2012.
LLRF ILC GDE Meeting Feb.6,2007 Shin Michizono LLRF - Stability requirements and proposed llrf system - Typical rf perturbations - Achieved stability at.
1 FNAL SCRF meeting 31/10/2015 Comments from LLRF Shin Michizono (KEK) Brian Chase (FNAL) Stefan Simrock (DESY) LLRF performance under large dead time.
Recent LFD Control Results from FNAL Yuriy Pischalnikov Warren Schappert TTF/FLASH 9mA Meeting on Cavity Gradient Flatness June 01, 2010.
1Matthias LiepeAugust 2, 2007 LLRF for the ERL Matthias Liepe.
Marc Ross Nick Walker Akira Yamamoto ‘Overhead and Margin’ – an attempt to set standard terminology 10 Sept 2010 Overhead and Margin 1.
W. 5th SPL collaboration Meeting CERN, November 25, 20101/18 reported by Wolfgang Hofle CERN BE/RF Update on RF Layout and LLRF activities for.
SRF Requirements and Challenges for ERL-Based Light Sources Ali Nassiri Advanced Photon Source Argonne National Laboratory 2 nd Argonne – Fermilab Collaboration.
1 Simulation for power overhead and cavity field estimation Shin Michizono (KEK) Performance (rf power and max. cavity MV/m 24 cav. operation.
SINGLE-STAGE BUNCH COMPRESSOR FOR ILC-SB2009 Nikolay Solyak Fermilab GDE Baseline Assessment Workshop (BAW-2) SLAC, Jan , 2011 N.Solyak, Single-stage.
Preparation for Sept 9mA studies: Follow-up items from February J. Carwardine, 22 May 2012.
Aug 23, 2006 Half Current Option: Impact on Linac Cost Chris Adolphsen With input from Mike Neubauer, Chris Nantista and Tom Peterson.
Nick Walker (DESY) John Carwardine (ANL) GDE ILC10 Beijing March 2010 Cryomodule String Test: TTF/FLASH 9mA Experiment.
FERMI LINAC O VERVIEW The 1.5 GeV 50 Hz Upgrade July 2013 C. Serpico.
John Carwardine 21 st October 2010 TTF/FLASH 9mA studies: Main studies objectives for January 2011.
John Carwardine 29 October, mA meeting 1. Agenda 9mA workshop Data analysis DAQ refresher / online database 2.
Barry Barish LCWS12 Arlington, TX 22-Oct-12 ILC – Status, TDR and Costs Global Design Effort 1 22-Oct-12 LCWS12 - Arlington, TX TDR Part I: R&D TDR Part.
John Carwardine 13 th April, 2011 Report on the 9mA program.
KCS and RDR 10 Hz Operation Chris Adolphsen BAW2, SLAC 1/20/2011.
John Carwardine 20 April 09 Preliminary planning for Aug/Sept studies.
John Carwardine (Argonne) First Baseline Allocation Workshop at KEK September 2010 Experience from FLASH ‘9mA’ experiments Gradient and RF Power Overhead.
@ Fermilab ILC bunch-compressor and linac rf requirements Sergei Nagaitsev Fermilab Feb. 9, 2006.
LLRF at FLASH for 9mA Program, ILC08, Nov. 19, 2008 LLRF for the FLASH 9mA Program S. Simrock DESY, Hamburg, Germany.
John Carwardine January 16, 2009 Some results and data from January studies.
1 LLRF requirements/issues for DRFS Shin MICHIZONO (KEK) BAW1 (Sep.8, 2010)
Overview of long pulse experiments at NML Nikolay Solyak PXIE Program Review January 16-17, PXIE Review, N.Solyak E.Harms, S. Nagaitsev, B. Chase,
Longitudinal aspects on injection and acceleration for HP-PS Antoine LACHAIZE On behalf of the HP-PS design team.
Matthias Liepe. Matthias Liepe – High loaded Q cavity operation at CU – TTC Topical Meeting on CW-SRF
RF control and beam acceleration under XFEL conditions Studies of XFEL-type Beam Acceleration at FLASH Julien Branlard, Valeri Ayvazyan, Wojciech Cichalewski,
Overview Step by step procedure to validate the model (slide 1 and 2) Procedure for the Ql / beam loading study (slide 3 and 4)
Positron Source for Linear Collider Wanming Liu 04/11/2013.
John Carwardine TDR Writing: FLASH 9mA Experiment.
Longitudinal dynamic analysis for the 3-8 GeV pulsed LINAC G. Cancelo, B. Chase, Nikolay Solyak, Yury Eidelman, Sergei Nagaitsev, Julien Branlard.
A CW Linac scheme for CLIC drive beam acceleration. Hao Zha, Alexej Grudiev 07/06/2016.
LLRF regulation of CC2 operated at 4˚K Gustavo Cancelo for the AD, TD & CD LLRF team.
Latest Results on Beam Loaded Experiments at FLASH/TTF Shilun Pei October 27,
Cost Optimization Models for SRF Linacs
ILC Power and Cooling VM Workshop
LLRF Research and Development at STF-KEK
dependence on QL can not longer be seen
Studies Leader Report: 9mA webex meeting, 15th March 2011
RF operation with fixed Pks
Planning the Experiment
Outlook of future studies to reach maximum gradient and current
Notkestrasse 85, Hamburg, Germany
CLIC Drive Beam Klystron Modulators
Measurements, ideas, curiosities
CW Operation of XFEL Modules
XFEL Project (accelerator) Overview and recent developments
LCLS Commissioning Parameters
Electron Source Configuration
“Workshop on Linac Operation with Long Bunch Trains” Summary
LCLS Commissioning Parameters
Barry Barish Paris ICHEP 24-July-10
LCLS Commissioning Parameters
ERL Director’s Review Main Linac
CEPC SRF Parameters (100 km Main Ring)
Parameters Changed in New MEIC Design
Multi-Ion Injector Linac Design – Progress Summary
Summary of the maximum SCRF voltage in XFEL
Presentation transcript:

John Carwardine 5 th June 2012 Developing a program for 9mA studies shifts in Sept 2012

It would be natural to develop a program that builds on what was achieved in February –Klystron saturation studies –Operation close to quench Need to consider that the Sept studies will be the last chance to collect results for the ILC TDR –Are there things missing from our accomplishments? 2

9mA studies (Feb 2012) Study topics –How well can we flatten the individual cavity gradients –How close to quench can we run the cavities with beam –How close to saturation can we run the klystron –How to ramp up to the maximum current, pulse length, and gradient without quenching Machine conditions used –800us bunch-trains (2400 bunches) –Average current over 800us: ~4.5mA (1.5nC/3MHz) –Beam energy: 1GeV –Energy gain on ACC67: 380MeV with 13 cavities –Operating gradients on ACC67: 29MV/m average, four cavities running above 31MV/m John Carwardine 3

Key Results Beam operation with 800us/4.5mA bunch trains, and… –Gradients of all cavities in vector sum flat within +/-0.3%, –All cavities in vector sum operating within 5-10% of quench First experience of ‘high gradient operations management’ –Quench detection / exception handling –Gradient ‘soft limiter’ to dynamically prevent quenching –Data-point of running machine into quench with 800us/4.5mA Beam operation with 800us/4.5mA bunch trains, and.. –RF forward power within ~7% of klystron saturation Ramp-up from ~zero to 800us/4.5mA pulses without quenching Rapid recovery to 800us/4.5mA after trip (‘crash test’) John Carwardine 4

TD Phase R&D results (updated mid 2012): System Tests with Beam at FLASH High beam power and long bunch-trains (Sept 2009) MetricILC Goal Achieved Macro-pulse current9mA (5.8mA)9mA Bunches per pulse2400 x 3nC (3MHz)1800 x 3nC 2400 x 2nC Cavities operating at high gradients, close to quench 31.5MV/m +/-20%4 cavities > 30MV/m Gradient operating margins (updated following Feb 2012 studies) MetricILC Goal Achieved Cavity gradient flatness (all cavities in vector sum) 2%  V/V (800  s, 5.8mA) (800  s, 9mA) <0.3%  V/V (800  s, 4.5mA) First tests of automation for Pk/Ql control Gradient operating marginAll cavities operating within 3% of quench limits Some cavities within ~5% of quench (800us, 4.5mA) First tests of operations strategies for gradients close to quench Energy Stability0.1% rms at 250GeV<0.15% p-p (0.4ms) <0.02% rms (5Hz) John Carwardine GDE PAC: May

Check-list of TD Phase accomplishments Long bunch trains, heavy beam loading demonstration –6mA / 800us demonstrated ( TDR Baseline) –9mA / 800us marginally achieved (luminosity upgrade) Vector Sum control of RF unit –Operation of RF units comprising 16 and 24 cavities –Intra- and inter-pulse stability better than 0.02% Operating gradients –Operation up to average of 29MV/m (24MV/m to 33MV/m) –Lorentz-force detuning compensation on all cavities simultaneously Pk/Ql control for optimizing gradient profile –Demonstrated flat gradient solutions to +/-0.3% –ILC baseline has more knobs (power ratios), so easier John Carwardine 6

Check-list of TD Phase accomplishments Klystron overhead –First results: beam operation within 7% of saturation –(Need to evaluate effect on energy stability) Operation close to quench –Several cavities within 5-10% of quench at 4.5mA, 800us Operation close to quench (operability) –Ramp-up to 4.5mA, 800us within 10% of quench demonstrated without quenching –Rapid recovery after quench –Quench detection / prevention with beam loading HOM coupler –Beam tests during high power 9mA/800us tests in 2009 –Excellent agreement between model and measured data John Carwardine 7 Strengthen these results

9mA Studies: evaluating rf power overhead requirements (4.5mA/800us bunch trains) Klystron high voltage was reduced from 108KV to 86.5KV so that the rf output just saturated during the fill The required beam-on power ended up being ~7% below saturation Response to step up is slower because the klystron cannot deliver the power demanded John Carwardine GDE PAC: May

Klystron saturation studies at TDR low-power baseline parameters Klystron saturation studies –In Feb, we didn’t have enough beam current to run in saturation during beam-on period In Sept, should perform klystron saturation studies at the new TDR ‘low power’ baseline parameters. Parameters relative to RDR… –Average current goes from 9mA to 6mA –Ql goes from 3e6 to 5e6 –Fill time goes from 600us to 900us –Pulse length goes from 1ms to 700us 9

Pushing closer to quench In Feb, we didn’t go as far up in gradients as we could have done – we have further to go Gradient ‘pre-limiter’ was working only on ACC6 cavities, and we only barely got started on learning how to set up and use the pre-limiters –In Sept, we need pre-limiters on all the ACC6/7 cavities –Work on setting up the limiter and pre-limiter thresholds Another possible gradient related study (FEL not ILC) –Pushing for higher total linac energies at lower charge –Would need pre-limiters on ACC4/5 as well as ACC6/7 –Wouldn’t be able to detune cavities as we do for ILC study –How significant would this study be? 10

If any cavity gradient reaches a defined threshold, the Klystron is automatically ramped down within the rf pulse. Prevents quench without initiating an rf trip Gradient operations management: ‘Soft-limiter’ dynamically prevents quenches John Carwardine GDE PAC: May

Main study items –Klystron saturation studies at ILC/TDR low-power baseline –Push more cavities closer to quench –Other high priority items…? It would also be good to work on the exception handling, eg –Implement ‘operations-quality’ gradient flattening algorithm –Cross-linkages between automation tools – integration –Need better exception handling, better uniformity Preparation tasks – see Julien’s slide from earlier 12