1 / 17

Feedbacks & Stabilization Getting them going

Feedbacks & Stabilization Getting them going. J. Wenninger AB/OP. Machine parameters to stabilize. How far can one get without FBs ?. Thanks to A. Burns & R. Jones. Not discussed here. The following (really) fast feedback systems : Feedback loops within the RF system.

ktyrrell
Download Presentation

Feedbacks & Stabilization Getting them going

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. Feedbacks & Stabilization Getting them going J. Wenninger AB/OP • Machine parameters to stabilize. • How far can one get without FBs ? Thanks to A. Burns & R. Jones Chamonix 03 / Presentation 7.5 / J. Wenninger

  2. Not discussed here • The following (really) fast feedback systems : • Feedback loops within the RF system. • Transverse damper system : • This system is required at an early stage to damp injection oscillations and instabilities. • Instrumentation details : • BPMs, Q-meters, PLLs, AC-dipoles, reference magnets… • Please refer to the various presentations of the instrumentation and magnet groups. Chamonix 03 / Presentation 7.5 / J. Wenninger

  3. Main parameters to stabilize • Orbit ~ 50 - 250 mm • Energy @ injection 10-4 • Tunes < 0.003 • Chromaticity ~ 1-2 units • Coupling < 0.005 • Luminosity in physics  Mike’s presentation(s). Growing complexity • Injection and snapback (ramp)… • affected by large dynamic effects ! • are the first steps we have to master ! • Concentrate the discussion on those phases for the nominal cycle. Chamonix 03 / Presentation 7.5 / J. Wenninger

  4. Anticipated variations during decay & snapback • Energy : few 10-4 b1 decay, Earth tides… • Orbit : ~ 1-4 mm rms. • Tunes : not so tough but … snapback • Chromaticity : ~ 80 units ! • Coupling : feed-down… snapback Q’ is the really tough one ! Chamonix 03 / Presentation 7.5 / J. Wenninger

  5. Feedbacks… • Open loop feedback : • The reference magnet / multipole factory is our main OL system. • Such systems are very sensitive to model errors. • Closed loop feedback : Preferred choice ! • Feed-forward : • Measurements at time t  anticipate changes at t+ Dt • (injection/filling  snapback, one fill to the next, …) • Relies on the machine reproducibility  magnet cycling …. Chamonix 03 / Presentation 7.5 / J. Wenninger

  6. Setting up for injection… • Magnets on pre-injection plateau • Multipole factory & reference magnets : evaluate corrections for b2, b3…. incorporated into the PC settings. • With experience : • include ‘empirical’ corrections based on beam measurements. • Magnets to injection settings • The persistent curr. decay changes orbit, energy, Q, Q’… during the next ~ 15 minutes. Changes snapback at the start of the ramp. • Get some beam – perform rough corrections… • If we have them, beam based FBs take full control with beam ! •  need beam all the time to track the parameters. • When do we need the beam-based feedbacks ? Chamonix 03 / Presentation 7.5 / J. Wenninger

  7. Orbit feedback • Measurement and correction are well established, • details to be sorted out / finalized  yesterday’s talk ! • At injection one can survive with a simple LEP-like measure-correct orbit ‘auto-pilot’ feedback : • - relaxed tolerances • - drifts are slow enough • The orbit FB should be implemented at an early stage with moderate gain, in any case before we start ramping. Chamonix 03 / Presentation 7.5 / J. Wenninger

  8. Energy feedback on injected beam • First beam(s) : match energy scale of SPS & LHC ! • Regular operation : • Follow energy changes by adjusting hor. orbit correctors in the LHC. • ! Sort out interferences with orbit FB – both use the same elements. • Measurements : • Comparison trajectory of injected beam – closed orbit. • Phase of injected beam… • This feedback is not very critical with first beams • – mainly required for larger intensity to keep the amount of • un-captured beam at an acceptable level. Chamonix 03 / Presentation 7.5 / J. Wenninger

  9. Q, Q’ & coupling : single kick measurements • Good for Q, Q’ (head-tail monitor) and coupling. Detection : • Dedicated high resolution monitors (mandatory for head-tail). • Orbit system (multi-turn). data readout : problem for the orbit FB due to front-end load ? Main side effect : emittance blow up  limit on kick amplitude and (rate) number ! Collimation : damage to collimators, coll. efficiency, BLM dump triggers  kick amplitude limits : • s/4 to s/2 “default” • up to ~ 1 s for low intensity (1 nominal bunch ?) Simple “measure and correct” system, once every few seconds ! Not suited for real-time feedback. Chamonix 03 / Presentation 7.5 / J. Wenninger

  10. Q kicking • Emittance increase due to single kicks (A. Burns) : • 0.4 mm kicks ~ s/2 • resolution 20 mm • 50 turns damping time  reasonable Q’.. • dQ < 10-3 Snapback Injection Will not work as well at higher energy because s decreases… We have to accept some e blow-up if we kick all the way up to 7 TeV… Chamonix 03 / Presentation 7.5 / J. Wenninger

  11. Q, Q’ & coupling : AC dipole measurements • Good for Q and (best for ?) coupling. • Detection : • Orbit system (multi-turn).  data readout : problem for the orbit FB due to front-end load ? ‘No’ emittance blow upif Q is ~ known  excitation outside Q spectrum. Collimation : same amplitude limitations than for single kicks. Could be operated continuously (!) for a real-time correction. • Comments on single kick/AC dipole : • They are potential collimator-busters ! • Careful amplitude interlocking and energy tracking is mandatory ! • Difficult to operate at high energy  very small amplitude ! Chamonix 03 / Presentation 7.5 / J. Wenninger

  12. Q, Q’ & coupling : resonant BPM • Excellent for Q measurements. • Q’ obtained from RF frequency (slow) or phase modulation (fast). Detection of ~ mm excitations: • Requires a 40 MHz structure on the beam  not suited for single bunches, TOTEM beams !  test ramps must be performed with 12 cons. bunches or so ! Not limited by e blow-up or collimation. Input signal for the Q PLL system  real-time Q FB. Delicate device  not available immediately. Q’ measurement remains delicate even with Q PLL. Chamonix 03 / Presentation 7.5 / J. Wenninger

  13. Operation without RT FB Reference magnets / multipole factory : • Track multipoles (n ≥ 2) @ few Hz during injection, snapback… Single kick Q,Q’… measurements : • Adjust / fine tune beam parameters. • Improve predictions of ref. Magnet / M-factory. During filling : • Track parameter changes. • Limit number of kicks or use sufficient number of ‘test’ shots. At end of filling,before launching the ramp : • Collect the integrated changes observed during injection. • Anticipate snapback effects by feed-forward to the PC functions.  should take care of the worst dynamic effects.  need a very strict book-keeping of trims ! Chamonix 03 / Presentation 7.5 / J. Wenninger

  14. Tolerances without RT FB dQ dQ’ ±0.01~ ± 15 units  ± 0.001 ~ ± 1-2 units  ± 0.003 ~ ± 6 units Assume 20% error on the predictions/ corrections from ref. magnets & M-factory : Beam measurements during filling : Feed-forward for snapback (prediction) : Measure & correct every few seconds in snapback… With experience we might achieve for the snapback : Q ~ OK 0 < Q’ < 10 or better – unlikely to reach ultimate tolerances. How far can we go like that ? With what kind of beams ? Chamonix 03 / Presentation 7.5 / J. Wenninger

  15. Remarks on operation without FB : • All effects come together – makes life a bit more difficult ! • We must rely on a good understanding of the dynamic effect and on a reproducible machine – with a machine that just started up !! • The emittances will surely be large(r) ! • There will be interferences with machine protection system that is also in the ‘commissioning’ phase. • Turn-around time is long, over 1 hour even in the best case. •  learning by trial and error costs a lot of time… • We need a good control system (applications !). • … • To minimize frustrations and keep a reasonable efficiency • (LEPI best was ~ 55 %), we should aim to have operational feedbacks… • ASARP !! Chamonix 03 / Presentation 7.5 / J. Wenninger

  16. When should we get FBs into operation ? Orbit : • We should start using it at an early stage, before we ramp. Energy : • Required at latest when RF capture losses become too high. Q,Q’ : • We could survive without FB … but life will be difficult ! It is worth investigating this point in detail (LHC-OP WG ?). • We should aim for an operational Q PLL system ASARP ! This will make life  easier ! • TOTEM beam , single bunches : Must rely on AC-dipole and beam kicking + feed-forward. Beam-kicking incompatible with small TOTEM e ? Chamonix 03 / Presentation 7.5 / J. Wenninger

  17. This is not LEP ! • LEP was commissioned 1989 and … • The tune feedback was operational in 1997, • A simple orbit feedback in 1995 (physics only). • …for operation of the LHC we cannot wait such a long time ! Chamonix 03 / Presentation 7.5 / J. Wenninger

More Related