1 / 21

Commissioning LHC Beam Instrumentation for Nominal Bunch Intensities

Commissioning LHC Beam Instrumentation for Nominal Bunch Intensities. Beam Commissioning Working Group June 15 th 2010 Rhodri Jones (CERN Beam Instrumentation Group). High Intensity BI LHC Commissioning. Report from 2 MD periods May 28 th : 4 hours 1 st go at

azriel
Download Presentation

Commissioning LHC Beam Instrumentation for Nominal Bunch Intensities

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Commissioning LHC Beam Instrumentation for Nominal Bunch Intensities Beam Commissioning Working Group June 15th 2010 Rhodri Jones (CERN Beam Instrumentation Group)

  2. High Intensity BI LHC Commissioning • Report from 2 MD periods • May 28th : 4 hours • 1st go at • BPM reading v intensity studies • Studies on DCCT dependence on fill pattern • Calibration of various Fast BCT modes • June 8th : 7 hours • 2nd go at • BPM reading v intensity studies • Studies on DCCT dependence on fill patterns • Calibration of various Fact BCT modes • 1st go at • Wire scanner timing calibration • BGI commissioning • PLL setting-up • Current Status of Abort Gap Monitor Beam Commissioning Working Group – 15th June 2010 Rhodri Jones

  3. Dependence of BPM Readings on Bunch Intensity • BPMs work on bunch to bunch basis • Only depend on bunch intensity • BPMs can be used in 2 sensitivity modes • High sensitivity • From ~ 1×109 to ~5×1010 • Low sensitivity • From ~ 5×1010 to ~2×1011 • Only changes threshold for bunch detection • No gains changed • Required to make system immune from reflections generated by imperfect cabling, connections & BPMs. • 1st MD showed that • B2 behaved as expected • B1 had a grey zone between 3×1010 and 5×1010 where neither sensitivity gave required results Beam Commissioning Working Group – 15th June 2010 Rhodri Jones

  4. BPM Dependence on Intensity - Beam 2 • One nominal bunch of 1×1011 slowly scraped away using a primary collimator • Sensitivity constantly changed from high to low • Outliers due to acquisition overlapping two sensitivity ranges • Sensitivity ranges seen to overlap as expected at around 5×1010 Beam Commissioning Working Group – 15th June 2010 Rhodri Jones

  5. BPM Dependence on Intensity - Beam 1 • One nominal bunch of 1×1011 slowly scraped away using a primary collimator • 2 fills – one for low sensitivity and one for high sensitivity Low Sensitivity Dead zone where neither setting works well ×1010 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 High Sensitivity ×1010 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Beam Commissioning Working Group – 15th June 2010 Rhodri Jones

  6. B1 Arc BPM variation - 5×1010 to 1×1011 Mean= 53mm • Stdev = 76mm • Mean= 55mm • Stdev = 80mm Beam Commissioning Working Group – 15th June 2010 Rhodri Jones

  7. B1 Arc BPM variation - 6×1010 to 1×1011 Mean= 8mm • Stdev = 44mm • Mean= 11mm • Stdev = 50mm Beam Commissioning Working Group – 15th June 2010 Rhodri Jones

  8. B1 LSS BPM variation - 6×1010 to 1×1011 Mean= 15mm • Stdev = 74mm • Mean= 20mm • Stdev = 57mm Beam Commissioning Working Group – 15th June 2010 Rhodri Jones

  9. B1 v B2 Comparison - 6×1010 to 1×1011 Mean= 2mm • Stdev = 48mm Arc BPMs Mean= 21mm • Stdev = 60mm Mean= 8mm • Stdev = 44mm Mean= 15mm • Stdev = 74mm LSS BPMs Beam Commissioning Working Group – 15th June 2010 Rhodri Jones

  10. BPM System Conclusions • BPM System • Max variation with intensity <200mm for 6×1010 to 1×1011 • Beam 1 behaviour in high sensitivity still to be understood for 3.5×1010 to 5×1010 • Hypothesis that intensity card is influencing B1 power supplies • Oustanding Issues • Temperature variations (~50mm / °C) • New software being tested to correct for this on-line • Influence of other beam on directional BPMs in the IRs • New firmware & software using synchronous mode & bunch selection being tested to overcome this • May also help overcome B1 issues in high sensitivity Beam Commissioning Working Group – 15th June 2010 Rhodri Jones

  11. FastBCTsat2×1010 protons per bunch • Attheseintensities the fastBCTsbehave as expected • As in SPS small % ismeasured in neighbouring 25ns slot • No impact observedfrombunchlength variations • 250ps to 150 ps sigma Beam Commissioning Working Group – 15th June 2010 Rhodri Jones

  12. Saturation of the Fast BCT • Saturation observed during first MD • Technical stop used to install attenuators for system B • Response tested during second MD System B with added attenuators Bunch Sum Intensity stays in agreement with the DCCT Total Intensity System A Bunch Sum Intensity (High Bandwidth ) loses track at ~6×1010 Time Beam Commissioning Working Group – 15th June 2010 Rhodri Jones

  13. DCCT Performance (1/2) • No issues observed with 2×1010 protons per bunch • At 1×1011 the DCCT measurement using its highest gain range becomes dependent on the filling pattern 2×1010 per injection 1×1011 per injection Grey = DCCT Blue = Fast LowBW Red = Fast HighBW (suffering from saturation) Bunch at 11001 Bunch at 3001 Bunch at 1001 Beam Commissioning Working Group – 15th June 2010 Rhodri Jones

  14. DCCT Performance (2/2) • At 1×1011 the DCCT measuring in gain range 3 seems insensitive to the filling pattern Dashed Blue = Whatitshouldbe Green = BCTDC A togglingfrom range 3 to 4 Gray = BCTDC B togglingfrom range 3 to 4 Beam Commissioning Working Group – 15th June 2010 Rhodri Jones

  15. BCT System Conclusions • Fast BCT System • Add attenuators to operational systems suring next technical stop • Ensure that this only affects the high bandwidth channel and not the low bandwidth providing the beam presence flag • Need to understand the remaining calibration issues • Why raw calibration still needs tweaking to align fast BCT with DCCT • The cause and effect of the signal tail in the trailing 25ns slot • Fast BCT dependence on bunch length • Look carefully at response during ramp when no longitudinal blow-up is applied to verify that observed intensity variations with bunch length were due to saturation • DCCT System • Switch to gain range 3 just above 1×1011 protons to avoid fill pattern dependence • Currently investigating possibility to eliminate Range 4 for SMP data • Investigations continuing for source of this problem • Correcting the intensity stored in the logging database • Requested by experiments • Currently working with CO to store corrected data in logging • Correction of known errors – e.g. DC offset & fast BCT signal tail Beam Commissioning Working Group – 15th June 2010 Rhodri Jones

  16. Wirescanner StudiesSignal Dependence on Acquisition Delay Need to space bunches by ~900 slots to measure individual sizes • test B2 Horizontal 50 800 B2 Vertical 100 1 50 Slot selection now available from OP app. 1000 800 Slot number 1 Beam Commissioning Working Group – 15th June 2010 Rhodri Jones

  17. Rest Gas Ionisation Monitor (BGI) Commissioning • Started testing without beam • Effect of emergency HV shutdown on pressure • Various scenarios tested • One set of parameters led to a pressure rise to 10-6 mbar • Resulted in vacuum valve closure • Conclusion • Emergency HV shutdown procedure will be modified to ensure that it does not lead to a rise in pressure which could close the valves & dump the beam Beam Commissioning Working Group – 15th June 2010 Rhodri Jones

  18. First Images from the BGI • First images seen with 2 bunches of 1×1011 protons • Gas pressure of 10-8 mbar • Tests then carried out on signal level with respect to main parameters • MCP voltage, gas pressure etc. • Not possible to vary the BGI magnet current (interlock issue to be followed-up) Beam Commissioning Working Group – 15th June 2010 Rhodri Jones

  19. Tune PLL Commissioning • BBQ sensitivity is so good PLL has been put on back burner but it does have advantages • Less likely to jump onto spurious peaks • Can track tune without need for predefined windows • May be easier to make compatible with damper • Has built-in demodulation for chromaticity measurement • Beam 2: • Only one scan was possible in time allowed • The scan was performed with debris of other tests (very low intensity)! • Measurement indicates SNR better in H than V • Would have been easy to obtain stable lock on either • Poor look of V plane phase an artifact of wraparound due to incorrect phase offset correction • Beam 1: • Just few minutes available for tests on this beam • Not possible to excite with the PLL system • Hardware being investigated Beam Commissioning Working Group – 15th June 2010 Rhodri Jones

  20. Status of the LHC Abort Gap Monitors • A bug in the software of the LHC abort gap monitor combined with insufficient hardware interlocks led to irreparable damage to both of the installed photomultiplier tubes (PMTs) • 2 PMTs with 2 new amplifiers have been installed • A CERN spare and one kindly provided by the LARP collaboration (Berkeley) • Spare PMT has lower sensitivity probably due to ageing • Not an issue for operation • 3 new PMTs have been ordered to arrive this summer • New HV power supplies with output limitation are at CERN • SW to control them currently being developed & tested • The abort gap monitor is operational again for both beams • It will be only be possible/safe to put the AG system into an automated mode after replacing the power supplies (next tech stop) • Working at fixed Voltage only has small impact on system operation Beam Commissioning Working Group – 15th June 2010 Rhodri Jones

  21. Status of the LHC Abort Gap Monitors Little difference between expected signal at 450GeV and at 3.5TeV Beam Commissioning Working Group – 15th June 2010 Rhodri Jones

More Related