commissioning lhc beam instrumentation for nominal bunch intensities beam commissioning working...
TRANSCRIPT
Commissioning LHC Beam Instrumentation for Nominal
Bunch Intensities
Beam Commissioning Working Group
June 15th 2010
Rhodri Jones
(CERN Beam Instrumentation Group)
● 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
High Intensity BI LHC Commissioning
Beam Commissioning Working Group – 15th June 2010 Rhodri Jones
● 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
Dependence of BPM Readings on Bunch Intensity
Beam Commissioning Working Group – 15th June 2010 Rhodri Jones
● 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
BPM Dependence on Intensity - Beam 2
Beam Commissioning Working Group – 15th June 2010 Rhodri Jones
02:21 02:35 02:48 03:01 03:15 03:280
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10x 10
10
UTC Time (2010-05-28)
Inte
nsity
(p/b
unch
)
B2 high sens
B2 low sens
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7
5.8
5.9
x 1010
UTC Time (2010-05-28)
Inte
nsity
(p/b
unch
)
B2 high sens
B2 low sens
● One nominal bunch of 1×1011 slowly scraped away using a primary collimator● 2 fills – one for low sensitivity and
one for high sensitivity
BPM Dependence on Intensity - Beam 1
Beam Commissioning Working Group – 15th June 2010 Rhodri Jones
Low Sensitivity
High Sensitivity
Dead zone where neither setting works well
0 2 4 6 8 10 12×1010
0 2 4 6 8 10 12×1010
B1 Arc BPM variation - 5×1010 to 1×1011
Beam Commissioning Working Group – 15th June 2010 Rhodri Jones
Mean = 55mmStdev = 80mm
Mean = 53mmStdev = 76mm
B1 Arc BPM variation - 6×1010 to 1×1011
Beam Commissioning Working Group – 15th June 2010 Rhodri Jones
Mean = 11mmStdev = 50mm
Mean = 8mmStdev = 44mm
B1 LSS BPM variation - 6×1010 to 1×1011
Beam Commissioning Working Group – 15th June 2010 Rhodri Jones
Mean = 20mmStdev = 57mm
Mean = 15mmStdev = 74mm
B1 v B2 Comparison - 6×1010 to 1×1011
Beam Commissioning Working Group – 15th June 2010 Rhodri Jones
Mean = 8mmStdev = 44mm
Mean = 15mmStdev = 74mm
Arc BPMs
LSS BPMs
Mean = 21mmStdev = 60mm
Mean = 2mmStdev = 48mm
● 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
BPM System Conclusions
Beam Commissioning Working Group – 15th June 2010 Rhodri Jones
● At these intensities the fast BCTs behave as expected
● As in SPS small % is measured in neighbouring 25ns slot
● No impact observed from bunch length variations● 250ps to 150 ps sigma
Fast BCTs at 2×1010 protons per bunch
Beam Commissioning Working Group – 15th June 2010 Rhodri Jones
● Saturation observed during first MD● Technical stop used to install attenuators for system B● Response tested during second MD
Saturation of the Fast BCT
Beam Commissioning Working Group – 15th June 2010 Rhodri Jones
System A Bunch Sum Intensity
(High Bandwidth ) loses track at
~6×1010
System B with added attenuators
Bunch Sum Intensity stays in agreement with the DCCT
Time
Tota
l Int
ensi
ty
● 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
DCCT Performance (1/2)
Beam Commissioning Working Group – 15th June 2010 Rhodri Jones
2×1010 per injection 1×1011 per injection
Bunch at 1001
Bunch at 3001
Bunch at 11001
Grey = DCCTBlue = Fast LowBWRed = Fast HighBW (suffering from saturation)
● At 1×1011 the DCCT measuring in gain range 3 seems insensitive to the filling pattern
DCCT Performance (2/2)
Beam Commissioning Working Group – 15th June 2010 Rhodri Jones
Dashed Blue = What it should beGreen = BCTDC A toggling from range 3 to 4Gray = BCTDC B toggling from range 3 to 4
● 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
BCT System Conclusions
Beam Commissioning Working Group – 15th June 2010 Rhodri Jones
● test
Wirescanner StudiesSignal Dependence on Acquisition Delay
Beam Commissioning Working Group – 15th June 2010 Rhodri Jones
B2 Horizontal
B2 Vertical1
50
100
800
50
1
1000
800Slot number
Need to space bunches by ~900 slots to measure individual sizes
Slot selection now available from OP app.
● 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
Rest Gas Ionisation Monitor (BGI) Commissioning
Beam Commissioning Working Group – 15th June 2010 Rhodri Jones
● 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
● 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)
First Images from the BGI
Beam Commissioning Working Group – 15th June 2010 Rhodri Jones
● 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
Tune PLL Commissioning
Beam Commissioning Working Group – 15th June 2010 Rhodri Jones
● 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
Status of the LHC Abort Gap Monitors
Beam Commissioning Working Group – 15th June 2010 Rhodri Jones
Status of the LHC Abort Gap Monitors
Beam Commissioning Working Group – 15th June 2010 Rhodri Jones
Little difference between expected signal at 450GeV and at 3.5TeV