Marc Ross Nick Walker Akira Yamamoto ‘Overhead and Margin’ – an attempt to set standard terminology 10 Sept 2010 Overhead and Margin 1.

Slides:



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

of LFD Compensation Study S1 Global Cryomodule
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.
1 STF-LLRF system and its study plan Shin MICHIZONO (KEK) LCWS12 STF-LLRF Outline I.STF system configuration S1-Global (~2011 Feb.) Quantum Beam (QB) (2012.
325 MHz RF Cave and SC Spoke Cavity Tests Robyn Madrak – Accelerator Physics Center (APC) for the HINS/Project X Group.
Piezo Studies and Temperature Measurements Ruben Carcagno May 11, 2005.
European Spallation Source RF Systems Dave McGinnis RF Group Leader ESS Accelerator Division SLHiPP-1 Meeting 9-December-2011.
Shuichi Noguchi, KEK6-th ILC School, November Auxiliary Components  Input Power Coupler  HOM Dumping Coupler  Frequency Tuner  He Jacket  Magnetic.
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.
SRF Results and Requirements Internal MLC Review Matthias Liepe1.
E. KAKO (KEK) 2009' Sept. 30 Albuquerque Global Design Effort 1 Cavity Test Items in S1-G Cryomodule Eiji Kako (KEK, Japan)
E. KAKO (KEK) 2010' Sept. 10 KEK Global Design Effort 1 Lorentz Force Detuning Eiji Kako (KEK, Japan)
SLAC ILC High Level RF Ray Larsen LLRF Workshop, FNAL, January 17, 2005 Rev. 1.
1 Results from the 'S1-Global' cryomodule tests at KEK (8-cav. and DRFS operation) Shin MICHIZONO (KEK) LOLB-2 (June, 2011) Outline I. 8-cavity installation.
Shuichi Noguchi,SRF2007,10.71 New Tuners for ILC Cavity Application Shuichi Noguchi KEK.
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.
LLRF-05 Oct.10,20051 Digital LLRF feedback control system for the J-PARC linac Shin MICHIZONO KEK, High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (JAPAN)
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.
S.Noguchi (KEK) ILC08 Chicago , Nov . 17, Cavity Package Test in STF STF Phase-1 E. Kako, S. Noguchi, H. Hayano, T. Shishido, M. Sato, K. Watanabe,
1Matthias LiepeAugust 2, 2007 LLRF for the ERL Matthias Liepe.
Tom Powers LLRF Systems for Next Generation Light Sources LLRF Workshop October 2011 Authored by Jefferson Science Associates, LLC under U.S. DOE.
John Carwardine 5 th June 2012 Developing a program for 9mA studies shifts in Sept 2012.
W. 3rd SPL collaboration Meeting November 12, 20091/23 Wolfgang Hofle SPL LLRF simulations Feasibility and constraints for operation with more.
RF system issues due to pulsed beam in ILC DR October 20, Belomestnykh, RF for pulsed beam ILC DR, IWLC2010 S. Belomestnykh Cornell University.
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.
ILC-BAW1 ML Accelerator Operational Gradient Introduction Akira Yamamoto, Marc Ross and Nick Walker GDE Project Managers Reported at BAW1, held at KEK,
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.
ILC FAST TUNER R&D PROGRAM at FNAL Status Report CC2 Piezo Test Preliminary Results Ruben Carcagno (on behalf of the FNAL FAST TUNER Working Group) 4/5/06.
ILC-BAW1 Interim Summary and Further Plan Akira Yamamoto, Marc Ross and Nick Walker GDE Project Managers Reported at BAW1, held at KEK, Sept. 9, ,
John Carwardine 21 st October 2010 TTF/FLASH 9mA studies: Main studies objectives for January 2011.
Summery of the power coupler session at the LCWS13 workshop E. Kako W.-D. Möller H. Hayano A. Yamamoto All members of SCRF WG November 14, 2013.
Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility Operated by the Southeastern Universities Research Association for the U.S. Department of Energy Kirk Davis.
Preliminary Results from First Blade Tuner Tests in HTS Yuriy Pischalnikov Warren Schappert Serena Barbannoti Matteo Scorrano.
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.
Jan Low Energy 10 Hz Operation in DRFS (Fukuda) (Fukuda) 1 Low Energy 10Hz Operation in DRFS S. Fukuda KEK.
GDE meeting Beijing (Mar.27, 2010) 1 DRFS LLRF system configuration Shin MICHIZONO KEK LLRF lack layout for DRFS DRFS cavity grouping HLRF requirements.
1 LLRF requirements/issues for DRFS Shin MICHIZONO (KEK) BAW1 (Sep.8, 2010)
Warren Schappert Yuriy Pischalnikov FNAL SRF2011, Chicago.
Superconducting RF: Resonance Control Warren Schappert PIP-II Machine Advisory Committee 10 March 2015.
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,
Matthias Liepe. Matthias Liepe – High loaded Q cavity operation at CU – TTC Topical Meeting on CW-SRF
1 Tuner performance with LLRF control at KEK Shin MICHIZONO (KEK) Dec.07 TTC Beijing (Michizono) S1G (RDR configuration) - Detuning monitor - Tuner control.
LFD and Microphonics Suppression for PIP-II Warren Schappert April 15, 2014.
Overview Step by step procedure to validate the model (slide 1 and 2) Procedure for the Ql / beam loading study (slide 3 and 4)
Superconducting RF: Resonance Control Presented by Yuriy Pischalnikov for W. Schappert, Y.Pischalnikov, J.Holzbauer PIP-II Machine Advisory Committee 15.
Microphonics Suppression in SRF cavities for Project X Yuriy Pischalnikov Warren Schappert Project X Collaboration Meeting Berkeley, April 11, 2012.
John Carwardine TDR Writing: FLASH 9mA Experiment.
SRF Cavities Resonance Control. CW mode of operation (FNAL’s experience). Yu. Pischalnikov W. Schappert FNAL TTC CW SRF Meeting, Cornell University, 12June,
Longitudinal dynamic analysis for the 3-8 GeV pulsed LINAC G. Cancelo, B. Chase, Nikolay Solyak, Yury Eidelman, Sergei Nagaitsev, Julien Branlard.
LLRF regulation of CC2 operated at 4˚K Gustavo Cancelo for the AD, TD & CD LLRF team.
Cost Optimization Models for SRF Linacs
Test of the dressed spoke cavity
dependence on QL can not longer be seen
Studies Leader Report: 9mA webex meeting, 15th March 2011
Tuner system Zhenghui MI 2017/01/17
Outlook of future studies to reach maximum gradient and current
High Gradient Cavities: Cost and Operational Considerations
Cavity resonance control
Review of the European XFEL Linac System
High gradients in TESLA nine-cell cavities
“Workshop on Linac Operation with Long Bunch Trains” Summary
Resonance Control for Narrow-Bandwidth, SRF Applications
FRIB summary of performance degradation - VTA to cryomodule
ERL Director’s Review Main Linac
CEPC SRF Parameters (100 km Main Ring)
Summary of the maximum SCRF voltage in XFEL
Presentation transcript:

Marc Ross Nick Walker Akira Yamamoto ‘Overhead and Margin’ – an attempt to set standard terminology 10 Sept 2010 Overhead and Margin 1

2 Quench Gradient Feed-back Limit ( LLRF ) V-Sum Feed-back Margin Time Gradient Highest Gradient Operation 1 ~ 2 MV Lorentz Detuning Compensation Error Q L = 3x10 6, Δf = 50 Hz, ψ = 13° ーー  ΔV = - 5 % QL = 2.0x10 6, Δf = 50 Hz, ψ = 8.7°  ΔV = % Operating Gradient 10 Sept 2010

Cavity Characteristics From its first cold power-on test through to its operation with beam we should track: gradient performance and field emission –(also Q_0). Gradient limit(s) and perceived origin of the limit –(precision to be discussed and defined) 10 Sept

Gradient Performance (Field emission is similar) In vertical dewar low power ‘CW’ test, a maximum gradient (and an associated Q_0) is observed and recorded: ‘vertical test observed gradient limit’, –And observed Q_0 at the limit. in subsequent testing: ‘horizontal test observed gradient limit’ and ‘cryomodule test observed gradient limit’ –(Noguchi: ‘Quench Gradient’) –are recorded –in general, are each different. 10 Sept

Operation in operation, –(administratively controlled): ‘operational gradient limit’ beyond which the cavity should not be routinely operated. –(Noguchi: ‘Feedback Limit’) Furthermore: ‘power-limited gradient’ beyond which the capabilities of the RF power source (and power distribution system) are exceeded. Others: –limitations due to cryogenics, controls, coupler, and etc) This defines the maximum capability of the linac - but not how it is stably operated: CONTROLS 10 Sept

Controls (‘Feedback and Control Margin’) Proper control of the cavity accelerating voltage includes control of: 1) the RF power source, 2) the power distribution system and coupler, 3) the cavity frequency resonance, and 4) beam current. In general, closed – loop feedback (or trim) with adequate control actuator range, setting precision and bandwidth is required for each. To know the effectiveness of the voltage control, the performance of each should be examined. 10 Sept

Selected terms (1): Observed Gradient limit The observed limit for steady superconducting operation in Vertical Low Power test, Horizontal test, cryomodule test and linac operation Operational Gradient limit Cavity should not be operated beyond this limiting voltage after installation in the linac; the limit may depend on duration/time Cryomodule assembly Gradient limit change The difference between the vertical test Observed Gradient limit and the cryomodule test Observed Gradient limit. Matched Condition Beam current and input power match – no reflected power Gradient slope Change in cavity voltage between the first bunch and the last bunch- typ P/P 10 Sept

Selected Terms (2): Lorentz Force Detuning Cavity resonant frequency shift due to 1.3 GHz RF energy ‘pressure’ Pre-detuning intentional cavity tuning offset used to achieve partial LFD compensation and minimize LFD compensation mover stroke amplitude Pulse to pulse fluctuation/pulse to pulse stability Distribution characteristics for a sequence of machine pulses; bunch intensity, average beam current, HLRF modulator pulse, etc RMS vs P/P Within the pulse fluctuation 10 Sept

Selected Terms (3): Loaded Q – Q_l(Loaded Quality factor) External Q(External Quality factor) P_kInput forward power Pulse to pulse fluctuation/pulse to pulse stability Distribution characteristics for a sequence of machine pulses; bunch intensity, average beam current, HLRF modulator pulse, etc Within the pulse fluctuation 10 Sept

Others: Tuning Overhead Energy overhead Microphonics Residual vibration Vector Sum Slow tuner Fast tuner Cavity Grouping Gradient spread Klystron saturation 10 Sept

Our task: Develop an optimized cost-conscious ILC linac design We know too little about optimizing high – gradient, 9 mA, CM performance To Note: –P_k/Q_l (Michizono) –RDR DESIGN INCLUDES P_k/Q_l remote control via 3 stub tuner motors –(and Q_l control via coupler) 10 Sept

BAW1 (Sep.,2010) Hz detuning requires additional 2% rf power 50 Hz detuning requires additional 2% rf power +/-15% Ql difference requires 0.6% additional power. +/-15% Ql difference requires 0.6% additional power. Detuning, Ql tolerance 50 Hz 2% additional power

Summary – Shin Michizono 13 BAW1-2, Technical Address (1)LLRF overhead ~5% (2)Cavity gradient tilt (repetitive) ~5% (3)Pulse-to-pulse gradient fluctuation ~1%rms RDRDRFS (PkQl)DRFS(Cavity grouping) Operation gradientMax. 33 MV/mAverage 31.5 MV/mMax. 38 MV/m RF source10 MW800 kW Waveguide loss8% power2% power Static loss (Ql, Pk)2% power Kly Hv ripple2.5% power Microphonics2% power Reflection0% power14% power0% power Other LLRF margin10% power 5%~10% power Ql tolerance3% (2) Pk tolerance0.2dB (2) Detuning tolerance15Hz rms(3)20Hz rms (3) Beam current offset2% rms (3) We have to examine these numbers experimentally. Tolerance should be discussed with cavity and HLRF group. If the tolerance is smaller, better gradient tilt would be possible , A. Yamamoto

10 Sept

10 Sept

‘LFD Compensation’ (Noguchi: DLD compensation) Warren Schappert and Yuriy Pischalnikov –Piezo control using Least-Square minimization –Of Finite Impulse Response Calibration Matrix 10 Sept

10 Sept Detuning Response to Piezo pulse time Schappert Pischalnikov Fermilab TD