1 / 7

Proposal for validation of LHC magnet data

Proposal for validation of LHC magnet data. Per Hagen (TE/MSC) FiDeL Working Group 17.02.2009. Personal reflections based upon practical work experience in 2008. Stage 1 - Analysis. The data to be validated is expressed in REFPARM format

kana
Download Presentation

Proposal for validation of LHC magnet data

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. Proposal for validation of LHC magnet data Per Hagen (TE/MSC) FiDeL Working Group17.02.2009 Personal reflections based uponpractical work experience in 2008

  2. Stage 1 - Analysis • The data to be validated is expressed in REFPARM format • The magnet expert (author of data) is assisted during compilation of REFPARM coefficients in order to reconstruct the original curves for TF(i, t) and harmonics(i, t) • Propose that a co-author does some cross-checks of the analysis of measurement data because easy to introduce errors which are not detectable FiDeL 17.02.2009

  3. Stage 2 - Publishing Officially FiDeLised • The REFPARM goes through a formal validation process to become the reference • It will include a checking tool to guard against informatics issues and completeness wrt LHC layout • The REFPARM data is stored in Oracle • There is a concept of APPROVED version • Older versions will be kept for traceability. It should be possible to easily generate data for “LHC2008”, “LHC2009” circuits FiDeL 17.02.2009

  4. Stage 3 – LSA validation • The REFPARMs, optics and cycle data are processed by the LSA control system to produce B(t), I(t) for circuits and a few correction demands, like MB b2, b3, b4, b5 • I propose to validate these by a separate tool like the FiDeL code in WISE • There is now a tool to dump LSA settings • When there are significant differences we need further transparency to individual FiDel components for the circuits / magnets FiDeL 17.02.2009

  5. Stage 4 – offline model • The FiDeL code in WISE can be used for generating the MADX field error tables • The cross-checks between LSA and WISE FiDeL should ensure consistency MADX vs LSA • The WISE FiDeL model contains more details than LSA; estimate of most harmonics, and by magnet FiDeL 17.02.2009

  6. Conclusion • Start now with FiDeL work because real problems are only detected at the end of the processing chain, and the loop must start over again… • In 2008 we discussed issues with • Measurement pre-cycles vs machine cycles • FiDeL model ( I -> 0.0 A, need for asymmetryTF(+i) <> TF(-i) • Optics sometimes causing unreasonable low current (further fine-tuning of optics) • Polarity issues LSA vs “as connected” (not addressed by FiDeL) • Sufficient time for validation FiDeL 17.02.2009

  7. FiDeL

More Related