GG3 Operations

1
GG3 Operations Reliability(Availability)

• Eckhard Elsen (Eckhard.Elsen_at_desy.de)
• Tom Himel (thimel_at_slac.stanford.edu)
• Nubuhiro Terunuma (Nobuhiro.Terunuma_at_kek.jp)

2
Goals and Questions to be Addressed
Goals and Plans of GG3 GG3 will cover operations
issues including attaining a high availability,
special needs for commissioning, and the machine
and personnel protection systems. The spotlight
will be on ways these requirements effect major
machine design decisions. The output of the
group should be a list of how operations is
effected by some of the design choices and a list
of features needed to attain an ILC that will
efficiently integrate luminosity. In cases where
we cannot answer the questions, we should
describe the work needed to attain the answer and
find someone to do that work.
Picked up from the Snowmass 2005 Web
3
Schedule1
GG3 Operations Reliability (1st
week) Tuesday (8/16) Availability Recovery
10 15 persons (3 Asia) 1600 - 1615
Benchmarking Availability code, S
Schaetzel 1615 - 1655 Availability
simulations, T Himel 1655 - 1730 Sources
Tunnels, Discussion --gt Postponed to 2nd
week Wednesday (8/17) ILC Commissioning
minutes 10 20 persons (5 Asia) 1600 - 1630
ILC commissioning from a HERA perspective, F
Willeke 1630 - 1645 ILC commissioning
Schedule, J Sheppard 1645 - 1655 ILC
commissioning ideas from the TESLA TDR, K
Floettmann 1655 - 1730 Requirements,
Discussion Thursday(8/18) Protection Systems
--gt Postponed to 2nd week
4
Schedule2
GG3 Operations Reliability (2nd
week) N.Terunuma did not stayed on 2nd
week. Tuesday (8/16) Availability
Recovery Wednesday (8/17) ILC Commissioning
minutes Tuesday(8/23) Protection
Systems 1600 - 1635 Fast MPS for ILC, P
Tenenbaum 1635 - 1655 Dump layout,
Discussion 1655 - 1720 Requirements for MPS
PPS, Discussion 1720 - 1730 Other discussion
and our assigned questions Wednesday(8/24)
Pros/Cons and planning 1600 - 1655 Generate
lists of pros/cons for all questions involving
GG3 1645 - 1730 Make plans for future work
5
Availability (Simulation Study)

• Benchmarking Availability Code with HERA,
  S.Schaetzel
• well reproduced failure numbers indicate that the
  failures are consistently generated in the
  program, i.e. a consistency test of the code
• Availability Simulations for ILC, T.Himel
• Key assumptions MTBFs and MTTR
• Mean Time Between Failures
• Mean Time To Recovery
• Undulator requires availability of electron beam.
  
• two tunnel system achieves 78, a single tunnel
  64 availability.
• MTBF of several components have to be increased
  by factors up to 20 to yield an 85 uptime.

Picked up from Notes by Eckhard Elsen 8/18,
Availability
6
(No Transcript)
7
Full list of Components
8
One vs Two Tunnels (cont.)
Reliability studies favour 2 tunnel solution
(recommendation from WG2/GG3 based on these
studies)
Nick Walker 8/26, Status of the ILC Accelerator
Design
9
Commissioning Discussion -1/2-

• People generally agreed with the above notes on
  the 3 talks.
• The control system must be able to record
  synchronized data of many time scales from many
  systems to allow fault analysis
• Need naming and numbering conventions that are
  followed.
• It would be nice to have DR not with linac to
  give more commissioning time of the DR while the
  linac is under construction.
• The effect of 1 vs 2 tunnel and DR location on
  phased commissioning are important and need
  further work in week 2.

Tom Himel 8/18, Notes from Commissioning Session
of GG3
10
Commissioning Discussion -2/2-

• The method of energy upgrade will effect
  commissioning. Needs further work in week 2
• It would be nice to have a keep-alive type e
  source to commissioning the e system (in
  addition to the e- source)
• Diagnostics should function at 1 beam intensity
  for commissioning and MPS recovery. It is OK if
  wire scanners are replaced with profile monitors
  for this.
• An automated alignment system that runs on tracks
  and automatically surveys component positions
  would be very useful

Tom Himel 8/18, Notes from Commissioning Session
of GG3
11
Running out of time.

• Main accelerator beam dynamics (WG1)
• Bunch Compression (WG1)
• Recommendation 2 stage preferred(6mm?150mm or
  9mm ? 300mm)
• Instrumentation (GG2)
• BPMs, wire scanners (laser-wire), MPS issues,
  etc.
• Machine Protection System (GG3GG2WG1)
• Very high risk (US LC options study)
• Operations, reliability, commissioning (GG3)
• Major issue for complex machine
• Cost Engineering (GG4)
• Cost is everything!
• Much much more.

An incredible amount of work has been
done/presented at this workshop!
Nick Walker 8/26, Status of the ILC Accelerator
Design
12

• Eckhard Elsen is preparing a write-up of GG3 - a
  draft should soon be available.
• More Details
• See
• http//alcpg2005.colorado.edu8080/alcpg2005/progr
  am/accelerator/GG3