1. mTCA use in Linac to replace CAMAC Tom Himel June 4, 2012 1

2. Outline General plan for replacing the linac CAMAC. Can it be done without disrupting the accelerator run schedule? Budget and schedule 2

3. General plan (1 of 3) As mentioned in my introductory talk: –Had planned to replace CAMAC in sectors 10-20 during four 7 month long annual downtimes of FACET. –This would save cost of doing the phase I upgrade for LCLS-II –Would allow LCLS-II to start with new hardware. –Very unlikely to happen on this time-scale as all available resources are needed for upgrades more essential for LCLS-II 3

4. General plan (2 of 3) Full CAMAC replacement is now far enough in the future, have not made new detailed plans. Do want intermediate improvements to be compatible with future plans –E.g. LCLS-II linac needs BPMs with better resolution and lower charge sensitivity than present CAMAC readout. –Best if done with final architecture so infrastructure can be shared with other systems and have best most modern hardware 4

5. General plan (3 of 3) If lab decides to use sectors 1-10 for FACET-II followed by LCLS-III, will propose to do those 10 sectors first during the long downtimes of FACET, then spread to rest of linac after we have all procedures down pat. Otherwise will start in LCLS I or II sectors during down days and the 2 month annual downtimes. Systems where we are happy with LCLS-I solution will mostly be duplicated. Systems with no or problematic LCLS-I solutions will be redone, typically in mTCA High channel count systems are the most important to develop early. 5

6. Plans by system LLRF: –LCLS-I still depends on CAMAC. PADs and PACs supplement the CAMAC on a few stations. All interlocks, timing and some analog readings are done with PIOP and MKSU –Replace with mTCA and MKSU-II (interlock and diagnostic network attached device (NAD) developed as part of the LLRF AIP project) BPM: –Upgraded linac LCLS-I has VME + NAD which works well. Cannot do 2 bunch, very kludgey. –Replace CAMAC with mTCA. –Present CAMAC system inadequate for low current running. 6

7. Plans by system Quads/Bends: –Upgraded linac LCLS uses NAD which works well –Duplicate –Present CAMAC + rack mounted controller solution has regulation problems at low current. Correctors –Upgraded linac LCLS uses VME ADC and DAC and PLC to control 2 bulk supplies and 16 corrector channels. Works fine but expensive –AIP developing new controller that goes in the crate with the 16 channels and replaces the VME and PLC functionality. Makes the power supply crate a NAD similar to that for the Quad power supply controller –Will use the AIP solution 7

8. Plans by system Machine Protection –Upgraded linac LCLS uses home-brew “link node” chassis that has plug in cards some of which are COTS, others are home-brew. Works well. –Will probably duplicate as requirements are odd enough that COTS solution is unlikely Vacuum: –LCLS non-linac uses signal conditioning chassis + COTS PLC’s –duplicate 8

9. Plans by system Temperatures and other slow ADCs –LCLS non-linac uses Beckoff I/O. Cheap, works well. –Duplicate Digital I/O –LCLS non-linac uses IP cards on VME carrier board –Will use same IP cards on mTCA carrier. 9

10. Plans by system Small channel count diagnostics like toroids, Faraday cups, profile monitors, wire scanners –LCLS solutions have various problems –Will improve for LCLS-II as allowed. –For toroid would build a new RTM for same ADC used for LLRF –Linac upgrade will either duplicate the improved versions or, if needed, develop improved versions probably in mTCA. 10

11. Installation without disruption We have considerable experience at this. Process: –Test in lab –Test in part of linac not in use –Where possible (not too many cables), develop quick switch over from old to new and back –Install and test on down days Phase I was done this way with virtually no disruption of accelerator program. See “Changing horses mid-stream” at http://www.esrf.eu/icalepcs2011/papers/tucau st04.pdf http://www.esrf.eu/icalepcs2011/papers/tucau st04.pdf 11

12. Installation without disruption Most RF stations can be taken offline, worked on and put back online while the linac is running. Main exceptions are injector klystrons. The mTCA LLRF testing was done this way using cable adaptors to make the switching of cables quick. Some systems like vacuum and MPS will have to have their final connections made during the two month downtimes. 12

13. Cost comparision The two biggest (and hence most expensive) systems are LLRF and BPMs. They are also the only systems for which we have seriously looked at more than one solution. Dan and Qiao showed that the costs for the considered solutions were quite similar Expect the same to be true for other locations of the same types of hardware 13

14. Linac upgrade cost and schedule As I mentioned before, we have not updated the cost and schedule for upgrading the linac as the start date is distant and uncertain. I’ll show some of what we presented at the last review. Mention a few possible changes 14

15. Budget Cost Analysis Resource Cost Estimates –All tasks detailed –Resources identified –Discussed details w/ resources for estimates –Summed resources vs. draft schedule –Performed similar exercise for RF (already approved AIP) –Totaled all manpower costs vs. time (24 mo.)

16. Hardware Cost Estimates MTCA Infrastructure –COTS based on actual quotes or vendor budgetary quotes –Includes crate, power modules, Hub Controller, Processor IOC, Timing Module –Timing module not yet a commercial item but base cost on similar commercial products

17. Hardware Costs 2 Applications Modules –AMCs: ADC-DAC, 3-IP, PMC adapter ADC-DAC: Vendor quotes, DESY target (Strück); Vadatech quote pending 3-IP: quote in hand (TEWS) PMC: Quotes pending (Vadatech,TEWS) –US 2 nd sources: Buying first articles to specification, compatible RTM –Timing Source is Stockholm U., working to develop vendors

18. Estimated 10- Sector Cost T. Himel  Assume LI11-20 Column costs  Solid state sub- booster required  Modulator PLC not required  BCS & Power Supplies Included  RF Station Unit Cost = $28K 1440 13110

19. Summary The R&D for the major systems is well advanced. We still have a few implementation decisions to make on the minor systems We have a rough and somewhat out of date cost estimate We have experience doing upgrades during short downtimes and while this one involves more cables, it is still doable 19