Controls Overview October 27, 2005

1. Controls OverviewOctober 27, 2005 • Outline • ES&H • Goals • Commissioning Schedule through the LTU • FAC Responses • Status update • Next 6 months • Conclusions

2. LCLS Control System ES&H • PPS for the Laser and Injector is designed. • Internal design review of wiring, racks, and AC distribution will be done for existing and new designs to determine safety and noise issues. • All personnel has up to date safety training for required work. • All equipment being purchased meets SLAC electrical safety standards.

3. LCLS Control System Goals • Provide a fully integrated control system to support the construction, test, installation, integration, operation and automation of the LCLS Accelerator • Standardize on all devices and components across all subsystems. • Identify all data either by pulse id, beam pulse related time stamp, or 500 msec rough time stamp. • Full integration with the SLC – timing, use of LCLS data in SLC high level applications, and use of SLC data in LCL • Provide an upgrade path for the SLC

4. Integration with the SLC Control System EPICS W/S Distributed Applications SLC Alpha All High Level Apps EPICS W/S Distributed Applications EPICS W/S Distributed Applications Xterm Xterm Xterm EPICS W/S Distributed Applications Xterm EPICS WS Distributed High Level Applications SLC Net (Data Communication) KISSNet (fast closed loop control data) PNet (Pulse ID / User ID) MPG Ethernet (EPICS Protocol) micro P N E T I/OC (SLC-aware) EVG Micro emulator Camac I/O RF reference clock

5. System Design EPICS W/S Distributed Applications EPICS W/S Distributed Applications SLC Alpha Apps EPICS W/S Distributed Applications Xterm Xterm EPICS W/S Distributed Applications Xterm EPICS WS Distributed High Level Applications Xterm Fast Feedback over Ethernet? SLC-Net over Ethernet Channel Access Vacuum Ctrl EVR Pwr Supply Ctrl C P U E VG EVR LLRF EVR Diag C P U HPRF I/O Boards C P U C P U IOC IOC IOC 16 triggers 16 triggers Single Bunch Beam Dumper Drive Laser Off Machine Protection Beam Code + EPICS Time + EPICS Events

6. LCLS Installation Schedule • Laser Commissioning May 31, 2006 • Injector Commissioning Nov 2, 2006 • BC1 / L1 Commissioning Nov 2, 2006 • Inj Spectro. Commissioning Nov 2, 2006 • L2 / BC2 / L3 Commissioning Oct 31, 2007 • LTU Commissioning Jan 31, 2008 • E Dump Commissioning Jan 31, 2008 • Laser Heater to be commissioned with Undulator

7. FAC Responses (1) • Global standards are required • Most of our standards are in place. Power supplies between the Undulator and the LINAC are not standardized. • You desperately need a central database for all project data • Andrea Chan has joined the LCLS and we are using their group for further support. There were two positions open, one in management and one in controls. The one is controls was removed. We share the one person with some additional support. • We have selected the PEP II database. The SNS database had too much in it that was SNS specific. • Sergei Chevtsov in the LCLS Controls Group has been looking at the relational database needs for the control system, in particular the RDB requirements for online modeling for the accelerator.. • BPM location and anchoring must be decided • Resolved.

8. FAC Responses (2) • SLC-aware IOC good progress prototyping, still lack functional requirements and top level design decisions on Applications and which should be EPICs vs SLC. • The SLC aware IOC is complete. The SLC applications are provided as a backup to the EPICS based applications. We have a team of three people starting on the EPICS based high level applications. The high level applications needed for each phase of commissioning have been identified and a plan is being executed. • http://www.slac.stanford.edu/grp/lcls/controls/global/facilities/slc_ioc/index.html • X-ray beam line controls requirements must be defined • Steve Lewis has identified all of the requirements, standardized all I/O, vacuum control, and motion control and is in the process or reorganizing the WBS to reflect these changes.

9. FAC Responses (3) • Undulator BPM performance requirements should be articulated including max working range • Done See Patrick’s talk • next week Patrick, Till, Bob and Lill meet to discuss the engineering specifications • The engineering process seems to be proceeding without explicit requirements and reviews. An example of this is the PNET module • Work groups for all subsystems are in place • These groups jointly develop requirements and design • High level ESDs should be complete this month. • All detailed ESDs are near completion, but have not been reviewed or published. • Where is global controls on the org chart? • All design and integration effort is now in 1.1.3.5 • Subsystem equipment and implementation is in x.x.2 • Signature authority on x.x.2 is global controls and x.x system managers

10. FAC Responses (4) • Can we get x-band klystrons and waveguides from the NLCTA? • We can get klystrons, elbows, converters – but we need to make the waveguide runs. (In the LINAC scope of work) • Injector laser controls interface needs close communication between vendor, controls group and laser experts/operators • Dalesio met with the selected vendor to review the design and verify that it more than meets the requirement to time stamp data within 500 msec. • The Thales control system will be used for control of the drive laser for the first year to maintain the warranty. The integration with EPICS is scheduled to be done after this first year. • Thales will make all source code available as well as the communication protocol to their embedded controller. • All 120 Hz control and shut down will be done external to the Thales drive laser. • Sheng Peng is working with the LCLS laser group to control all devices outside of the Thales laser.

11. FAC Responses (5) • Follow new code requirements for low-smoke fireproof cables • Done • It is unclear how to design feedback to control X-band phase- explore "dithering". • Addressed in Patrick’s talk – compensating drifts in the X band system with beam based feedback in the S Band.

12. FAC Responses (6) • The PPS system will be implemented with PLCs. This is the first time this will be done at SLAC. We are glad you are helping bring SLAC PPS into the present century. There is a relatively new standard for safety certified PLCs. Consider using only PLCs that meet this new standard. • We are working together with SPEAR3 to develop a common approach based on the work at J-Lab and SNS using the SIL3 Cat4 safety certified Pilz PLCs. The LCS injector PPS plans are scheduled for presentation to the SLAC safety committee this November.

13. FAC Responses (7) • The magnet power supplies have only one current read-back. This is used both in the feedback loop of the power supply and in the read-out by the control system. While many accelerators operate like this, it has the problem that if the current readout (shunt or transductor) breaks such that it gives the wrong reading by a few percent, there will be no indication in the control system, but the beam will misbehave. While such failures may not happen too often, they can take many days (suffering with poor beam) to track down. The use of redundant current read-backs would solve this problem. One is used in the supply feedback circuit while the second is used for the control system read-back. If either fails, the control system will show that the current is out of tolerance. Please consider using redundant read-backs. • The orders for the powers supplies for the injector have now been placed. The small, corrector supplies use the COTS Bira™ MCOR supplies with only one current read back. The intermediate supplies for the injector solenoids and bend magnets will use a SLAC design Ethernet controller, used at SPEAR3, which does have the capability for redundant read back. We are also further investigating the power supply controllers for the rest of the project with redundant read back and better integration into the control system in general.

14. FAC Responses (8) • The MPS system needs to be defined soon. It is unknown if it is a big job or a little job. Until it is defined well enough to know, it will remain a concern. Reasons to be worried that it might be a big job is that its actions are mode dependent, it must stop the beam before the next pulse, and it may need to interface with the master pattern generator of the SLC control system. It is complicated enough that it may need to be programmable, yet as an MPS system, great care must be taken to make sure it keeps things safe. A similar project on the SLC took several man years to implement. At least the functional requirements and top level design should be done and presented at the next FAC so it will be know how big a job it is. • The functional requirements for the MPS have now been defined including both the range of fault sensing devices and the beam shut off systems to be used, along with the necessary response time. • It will interface to the master pattern generator for LCLS. One of the mitigation actions is to rate limit the beam. • The earliest need date for MPS is 10/31/2007 with the commissioning of BC2/ L2/BC3.

15. FAC Responses (8) • While SLAC is using a CVS system at SLAC as a controlled software repository, the other labs are doing their own things. There needs to be a common repository that all the developers use. • It is a good idea and we need a system manager to set such a thing up. Until then, we plan to receive updates from the other labs (i.e., in tar format), import into the SLAC CVS repository, build, and release to production as needed. We also provide SLAC AFS accounts to external engineers and allow those accounts to update the SLAC repository. • As a result of budget concerns, we will not fill a full time system manager. We will use the management services around the laboratory.

16. FAC Responses (9) • The present plan is to move the Undulator in and out of the beamline by using two stepping motors (one at each end). This may cause problems of keeping them synchronized to avoid the jamming that would occur if the Undulator gets crooked. Consider using a single motor with gears and chains connecting the two ends or air cylinders to move them instead of the two-motor solution. • We will test a fail-safe motor controller software system in the next year. This would sense the position of both motors to avoid jamming. We believe this is preferable to the additional mechanical complexity of gears and chains linking each end of the Undulator.

17. FAC Responses (10) • The very tight temperature tolerances in the Undulator tunnel (+/- 0.2 C) have severe implications on controls. There are plans to put electronics in the ceiling air return duct where it will be difficult to maintain and concerns that the stepping motors will give off more heat than allowed. The air conditioning system necessary to maintain that temperature stability is also very expensive. The accelerator physicists should have a hard look to see if there is a way to increase this tolerance. • The temperature stability tolerances for the Undulator tunnel have been re-examined both with respect to their influences on the Undulator magnetic field as well as to the positional stability of the quadrapoles and BPMs. • GENESIS simulations of the effects of errors of the average K values for each Undulator segment, both random and systematic, show that temperature errors from a uniform distribution with a width of ±1 degree F (±0.56 degrees C) are consistent with a total overall error budget for a 25% reduction in FEL power (but not taking credit for simple Undulator x-position adjustments to compensate temperature variations). • In parallel, a thermal expansion study was carried out at the APS with the result that for temperature changes of ±0.5 degree C the critical components will stay with in the position tolerances (±5 microns over 24 hours). • Based on these analyses, which will be presented during the next FAC meeting, the temperature tolerances for the Undulator tunnel have been relaxed. The requirement specification says now: “The absolute temperature along the Undulator will stay within a range of 20±0.6 °C at all times.”

18. FAC Responses (11) • The project is making good use of commercial hardware solutions. This will help keep the engineering costs down. • We are continuing with this policy. • We are now exploring COTS small processors that can run RTEMS and EPICS to support small, standalone controls applications without the use of a full VME crate. • These could potential save significant hardware and wiring costs. • However, in order to expedite the injector installation we have opted to use a small number of SLAC built power supply controllers for the medium sized magnets while we further explore other commercial solutions. There are 5 of these at $2K each that we can replace if we implement an intelligent controller on schedule.

19. FAC Responses (12) • The power distribution system is being planned with extra capacity. This will allow upgrades to the Linac to be conveniently done by implementing the new hardware using the new power distribution system. The old hardware can then just be turned off when it comes time to switch over. • Electrical power load tests have been scheduled for the Linac klystron gallery and after evaluation the Conventional Facilities group will begin planning any upgrades necessary to support the new equipment.

20. FAC Responses (13) • A fiber solution for distributing the RF phase reference was presented as a future upgrade to the planned distribution via cable. This looks very promising. We encourage actively pursuing this R&D with the hope that the fiber system could be used from day one. • We are keenly following the progress of two groups at present, who are pursuing fiber distribution of RF. The MIT/DESY collaboration uses interferometry at the RF wavelength to stabilize the fiber, while LBL uses a method developed for astronomy based on interferometry at optical wavelengths. • We have not yet built a test stand of our own for LCLS R&D.

21. Update April 2005 – October 2005 (1) • Finish hiring – team in place • Laser Control – Sheng Peng • Power Supplies – Kristi Luchini, Paul Bellermo, Anthony DeLira, Dave MacNair • Vacuum – Stephen Schuh, Steve Lewis, Tom Porter • Diagnostics – Patrick Krejcik, Till Strauman, Doug Murray, Sheng Peng, Michael Cecere, Steve Smith, Tom Porter, Ron Akre, (Bob Lill APS). • Personnel Protection – Patrick Bong and group • RF Control – Dayle Koturri, Arturo Alarcon, Ron Akre • Wiring, Racks, Conventional Facilities – Mario Ortega and company. • High Level Applications – Diane Fairley, Debbie Rogind, Sergei Chevstov, and Stephanie Allison • Fast Feedback – Stephanie Allison working with diagnostics and controls • Network and workstations – Doug Murray and lab network support • Undulator Control – Josh Stein and company • XTOD Control – Steve Lewis and company • Physics requirements and diagnostic design support – Patrick Krejcik • RDB for project documentation and beamline control – Andrea Chan and company. • Machine Protection System – Stephen Norum • Group Leader interviews have begun.

22. Update April 2005 – October 2005 (2) • SLC-Aware IOC is complete. • Prototypes in test: • PNet – Tests ongoing. Looks good. • Interface to facility controls ALC system tested • Timing – EVG/EVR100s operational – need the 200 series to test the passing of the PNET data onto the EVG. • Prototype operational for the Newport motors for laser control and wire scanner control. • Power Supply – using the SLC power supplies. VME I/O ordered to set up the test stand. Ethernet controller for more stable power supplies is running at SSRL. We are looking for an embedded controller to replace this one as there is some concern over the reliability of the UDP communication. • Video – cameras is operational but needs the EPICS driver • LLRF test is using an analog front-end is operational. A new embedded controller is prototyped and nearly ready to test. • Parts for the vacuum control I/O have been ordered. • A BPM prototype from Steve Smith’s group is nearly ready for test. • Parts for the wire scanner test are in hand, but a change back to previous wire scanner hardware may require a redesign. • The RTEMS BSPs for the 5500 and 6100 cpus are operational. • SLC aware IOC test stand is operational using multiple platforms. Integration with timing is required.

23. Update April 2005 – October 2005 (3) • Prototypes needed • 120 Hz fast feedback • Machine Protection • Micro IOC for use in MPS, Power Supply Control, Vacuum Control, LLRF Control, and video control. • WBS LINAC being updated to reflect staged installation • No contingency available in the budget due to extreme overruns in the conventional facilities. Work is being done to handle this and provide possible contingency. Until prototypes are operational our budget cannot be refined further.

24. Update April 2005 – October 2005 (4) • Laser Installation Requirements • Thales laser controlled in Labview for first year • Newport motor controls for laser table prototype is operational and all motors identified • Video diagnostic prototype is operational – needs integration with EPICS • Laser safety system is designed. • Injector / L1 / BC1 Installation Requirements • PNET interface is operational • SLC-aware IOC is operational • Power supplies ordered • Vacuum hardware is identified and first articles ordered for the test stand • LLRF design with a prototype ready for test • Timing System prototype needs evg200/evr200 which are ordered • BPM prototype from Steve Smith’s group is ready for test • Wire scanner hardware may not interface to new wire scanner design – needs some rethinking • Questions remain about reading the wire directly – or using pickups further downstream • Personnel protection is designed and SIL3 compliant hardware ordered for prototype

25. Next 6 months • Identify micro computers to use for our applications in the next three months • Complete subsystems needed for Laser and Injector • Complete detailed designs • Complete prototypes with EPICS integration • Complete reviews • Revamp costs

26. CONTROLS Breakout Breakout Session 3: Controls Location: Redwood B • 1:30 Controls Overview B. Dalesio • 2:00 Integration with SLC S. Allison • 2:30 RDB A. Chan • 2:45 High Level Apps D. Fairley • 3:00 Controls plans for the 2006 installation B. Dalesio • 3:30 Break • 3:45 Laser Safety and Personnel Protection Systems P. Bong • 4:15 Laser Control S. Peng • 4:30 BPM Control T. Strauman • 4:45 Undulator Controls J. Stein • 5:00 X-Ray Transport/Optics/Diagnostics Controls S. Lewis

27. Conclusions • An excellent team is in place. • A group leader is to be hired in the near future. • The WBS is being changed to reflect the staged installation of the LINAC. • The timing hardware must go into test soon to give our SLC integration a conservative amount of test time. • MPS and fast feedback have teams working on them and are not needed in the next year. • Formal design reviews are needed on all subsystems to be used in the next year.