1 / 12

Low Level RF Design

Low Level RF Design. Outline Scope Requirements Options considered Evaluation System drawings Conclusions. Scope. This document summarizes the evolution of the LLRF control system design from its original distributed VME chassis (1 per klystron) to the current design.

greg
Download Presentation

Low Level RF Design

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. Low Level RF Design • Outline • Scope • Requirements • Options considered • Evaluation • System drawings • Conclusions

  2. Scope • This document summarizes the evolution of the LLRF control system design from its original distributed VME chassis (1 per klystron) to the current design

  3. Requirements • Meet phase/amp noise levels • Achieve 120 Hz feedback to maintain phase/amp stability • Adhere to LCLS Controls Group standards: RTEMS, EPICS, Channel Access protocol • Begin RF processing of high-powered structures May, 2006

  4. Options considered • Originally, various solutions were evaluated, from 100% COTS modules to hybrids of in-house designed boards. See Low Level RF Controls Design, LCLS Week, 25-27 Jan 2005 • Later, the options were narrowed down to two: an Off-the-shelf solution and an in-house solution. See Low Level RF, Lehman Review, 10-12 May 2005

  5. Evaluation • The Off-the-shelf solution is: • Expensive ($25K per instance * 10 instances) • Noisy. ADCs are up to 150’ from what they measure so analog noise levels and ground loop problems would need to be dealt with • The in-house solution is: • Possibly longer to develop due to board design and fabrication time.

  6. Evaluation (2) • Characteristics of the Off-the-shelf solution were seen as requiring more effort than those of the in-house solution • Potential offered by the lower cost of the in-house solution to replace 250 klystron controllers in the remainder of the LINAC is attractive • Hardware people were available as of 22aug2005 to work on board design if µcontroller was decided • Turned to the EPICS community for ideas and chose a µcontroller

  7. Evaluation (3) • Lower cost alternatives to the $15K VME chassis and IOC were discussed in the session on hardware at the EPICS Collaboration Meeting. April 27-29, 2005 • Of the options available, only the Coldfire uCdimm 5282 processor had the communication speed and power to meet our data requirements. Cost is $150 per processor plus the development of the board it sits on

  8. Evaluation (4) • By choosing the Coldfire processor, we are able to make use of the port of the operating system, RTEMS, which has already been done. • RTEMS is the standard for the real-time operating system chosen for LCLS by the Controls Group • EPICS, the standard for the control system software for LCLS runs on RTEMS • With these choices, the LLRF control system will be fully integrated into the rest of the LCLS EPICS control system and can speak to other devices and applications such as control panels, alarm handlers and data archivers, using Channel Access protocol, the standard communication protocol for this project.

  9. Conclusions • This solution: • meets the spec for speed and noise • avoids signal noise problems • avoids ground loop problems • meets LCLS control system requirments and standards running EPICS on RTEMS • provides a low cost path for future upgrade in the rest of the LINAC when the rest of the klystron control is replaced

More Related