Analysis of June-July measurements

Nicholas AquilinaTE-MSC-MDA

Acknowledgements:L. Fiscarelli, G. Montenero, L. Walckiers for measurements

L. Bottura, N. Sammut, E. Todesco for fits and model

CERN, FiDeL meeting, 28th September 2010

2

Contents

• List of measurements• Decay amplitude vs ramp rate• Scaling laws• Linear correlation• Difference between measurements• Baseline analysis

9/28/2010

3

List of measurements (1)

9/28/2010

Measurement dI/dt (A/s) IFT (A) tFT (s) tPRE (s)

1 10 2000 1000 10002 10 2000 1000 10003 10 2000 0 10004 10 2000 0 -5 10 2000 0 10006 10 2000 0 10008 2 4000 1000 10009 10 4000 1000 1000

10 2 6000 1000 100012 10 6000 1000 100013 2 6000 0 -14 10 6000 0 -15 2 6000 0 -16 10 6000 0 -

4

List of measurements (2)

9/28/2010

Measurement dI/dt (A/s) IFT (A) tFT (s) tPRE (s)

18 10 11850 0 100019 10 11850 0 -20 10 11850 0 100021 10 11850 0 100022 10 11850 0 -23 10 11850 0 -24 2 11850 1000 1000

5

Decay amplitude vs ramp rate

9/28/2010

• Decay amplitude is expected to increase from 2 A/s to 10 A/s by 50% to 75%

• MB2524 has been the first magnet to be measured at 2 A/s in June-July with FAME

6

Scaling law (1)

• Ramp rate of 10 A/s• Flattop current of 11850 A• Flattop time of 1000 s• Preparation time of 0 s

9/28/2010

7

Scaling law (2)

9/28/2010

0.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.8

0 2 4 6 8

∆b 3

IFT (kA)

b3

Ap 1

Ap 2

FiDeL model

8

Scaling law (3)

9/28/2010

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

0 10 20 30 40

∆b 3

dI/dt (A/s)

b3

Ap1

Ap2

FiDeL model

∆b3 vs dI/dt for 6 kA ramps

Note that the scaling law is not accurate at low ramp rate values (decay amplitude is factor 2 less, not 5)

9

Scaling law (4)

9/28/2010

∆b5 vs dI/dt for 6 kA ramps

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0 10 20 30 40

∆b 5

dI/dt (A/s)

b5

Ap1

Ap2

FiDeL model

Note that the scaling law is not accurate at low ramp rate values

10

Scaling law (5)

9/28/2010

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

0 10 20 30 40

∆b 3

dI/dt (A/s)

b3

Ap1

Ap2

FiDeL model

∆b3 vs dI/dt for 4 kA ramps

Note that the scaling law is not accurate at low ramp rate values

11

Scaling law (6)

9/28/2010

∆b5 vs dI/dt for 4 kA ramps

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0 10 20 30 40

∆b 5

dI/dt (A/s)

b5

Ap1

Ap2

FiDeL model

Note that the scaling law is not accurate at low ramp rate values

12

Linear correlation (1)• Snapback can be described by an exponential

fitting:

• Linear correlation:

9/28/2010

13

Linear correlation (2)

9/28/2010

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0 1 2 3 4

∆b 3

∆I3

IFT

2 kA-Ap1

4 kA-Ap1

4 kA-Ap2

6 kA-Ap1

6 kA-Ap2

correlation (0.176)

14

Linear correlation (3)

9/28/2010

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

0.14

0.16

0.18

0 2 4 6 8

∆b 5

∆I5

IFT

2 kA-Ap1

4 kA-Ap1

4 kA-Ap2

6 kA-Ap1

6 kA-Ap2

correlation (0.028)

15

Linear correlation (4)

9/28/2010

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0 1 2 3 4 5

∆b 3

∆I3

dI/dt

2 A/s, 4 kA

10 A/s, 4 kA

2 A/s, 6 kA

10 A/s, 6 kA

correlation (0.176)

16

Linear correlation (5)

9/28/2010

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.2

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

∆b 5

∆I5

dI/dt

2 A/s, 4 kA

10 A/s, 4 kA

2 A/s, 6 kA

10 A/s, 6 kA

correlation (0.028)

17

Difference between measurements (1)

• Dec 09-Jan 10 measurements were compared with Jun-Jul 10 measurements

9/28/2010

Observations:

•Change by a factor of 1.5

•Campaign 1 (blue) refers to Dec 09-Jan 10 measurements

•Campaign 2 (black) refers to Jun-Jul 10 measurements

Comparison of the b3 component for a 6 kA ramp.

18

Difference between measurements (2)

9/28/2010

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 80000

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

Time (s)

Curr

ent (A

)

campaign 1campaign 2P: 2, 0.05

E: 0, 0L:10, 2P:-2, -0.05

P: 2, 0.82E: 0, 0L:10, 2P:-2, -0.82

19

Baseline (1)

• Stop for 0 s at 350 A• Stop for 1000 s at

500 A (pre-injection)• Stop for 1000 s at

757.2 A (injection)

9/28/2010

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000

Cu

rren

t (A

)

Time (s)

Pre-cycle and ramp

20

Baseline (2)

9/28/2010

Measurement dI/dt (A/s) IFT (kA) Duration (s) of stop at 350 A

Duration (s) of stop at 500 A

Duration (s) of stop at 757.2A

2 10 2 0 1000 1000

5 10 2 0 1000 0

6 10 2 0 1000 -

10 2 6 0 1000 1000

13 2 6 0 - 0

15 2 6 0 - -

12 10 6 0 1000 1000

14 10 6 0 - 0

16 10 6 0 - -

18 10 11.85 0 1000 1000

19 10 11.85 0 - 1000

20 10 11.85 0 1000 0

21 10 11.85 0 1000 -

22 10 11.85 0 - 0

23 10 11.85 0 - -

21

Baseline (3)

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 70000

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

Time (s)

Cur

rent

(A)

meas 2meas 5meas 6

9/28/2010

2 10 A/s 2 kA 0 s 1000 s 1000 s

5 10 A/s 2 kA 0 s 1000 s 0 s

6 10 A/s 2 ka 0 s 1000 s -

22

Baseline (4)

740 745 750 755 760 765 770 775 780 785 790

-2.75

-2.7

-2.65

-2.6

-2.55

-2.5

-2.45

-2.4

-2.35

-2.3

-2.25

Current (A)

b 3 (uni

ts)

meas 2meas 5meas 6

9/28/2010

Decay occurs even when stopping at injection for 0 s.Please note that PELP is changed and restarted when stopping for 0 s.

23

Baseline (5)

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 180000

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

Time (s)

Cur

rent

(A)

meas 10meas 13meas 15

9/28/2010

10 2 A/s 6 kA 0 s 1000 s 1000 s

13 2 A/s 6 kA 0 s - 0 s

15 2 A/s 6 kA 0 s - -

24

Baseline (6)

740 745 750 755 760 765 770 775 780 785 790

-2.75

-2.7

-2.65

-2.6

-2.55

-2.5

-2.45

-2.4

-2.35

-2.3

-2.25

Current (A)

b 3 (uni

ts)

meas 10meas 13meas 15

9/28/2010

Decay occurs even when stopping at injection for 0 s

25

Baseline (7)

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 80000

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

Time (s)

Cur

rent

(A)

meas 12meas 14meas 16

9/28/2010

12 10 A/s 6 kA 0 s 1000 s 1000 s

14 10 A/s 6 kA 0 s - 0 s

16 10 A/s 6 kA 0 s - -

26

Baseline (8)

740 745 750 755 760 765 770 775 780 785 790-2.8

-2.7

-2.6

-2.5

-2.4

-2.3

-2.2

-2.1

-2

Current (A)

b 3 (uni

ts)

meas 12meas 14meas 16

9/28/2010

Decay occurs even when stopping at injection for 0 s

27

Baseline (9)

9/28/2010

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 100000

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

Time (s)

Cur

rent

(A)

meas 18meas 19meas 20meas 21meas 22meas 23

18 10 A/s 11.85 kA 0 s 1000 s 1000 s

19 10 A/s 11.85 kA 0 s - 1000 s

20 10 A/s 11.85 kA 0 s 1000 s 0 s

21 10 A/s 11.85 kA 0 s 1000 s -

22 10 A/s 11.85 kA 0 s - 0 s

23 10 A/s 11.85 kA 0 s - -

28

Baseline (10)meas 18 meas 19 meas 20 meas 21 meas 22 meas 23 units

Flattop current, 11.85 kA for 0 0 0 0 0 0 s

Pre-cycle ramp-down

P -0.05 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05 As-2

E 0 0 0 0 0 0 sL -10 -10 -10 -10 -10 -10 As-1

P 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 As-2

Stop at 350 A for 0 0 0 0 0 0 s

Going to pre-injection

P 0.05 - 0.05 0.05 - - As-2

E 0 - 0 0 - - sL - - - - - - As-1

P -0.05 - -0.05 -0.05 - - As-2

Pre-injection porch, 500 A for 1000 - 1000 1000 - - s

Going to injection

P 1.5 1.5 1.5 - 1.5 - As-2

E 0 0 0 - 0 - sL 10 10 10 - 10 - As-1

P -1.5 -1.5 -1.5 - -1.5 - As-2

Injection plateau, 760 A for 1000 1000 0 - 0 - s

Ramp-up

P 0.0089 0.0089 0.0089 0.0089 0.089 1.5 As-2

E 0 0 300 0 300 0 sL 10 10 10 10 10 10 As-1

P -0.176 -0.176 -0.179 -0.18 -0.18 -1.5 As-2

Flattop current, 11.85 kA for 1000 1000 0 0 0 0 s

9/28/2010

29

Baseline (11)

9/28/2010

• Note how measurements 19, 22 and 23 take a different path then the others • This can be the effect of the fast PELP used to ramp up from 350 A to the next level • Measurements 18 and 20 join these three when using the same PELP• Decay occurs even when stopping at injection for 0 s

30

Conclusion

• Linear correlation has been confirmed once again• The flattop current scaling law has been confirmed• The ramp rate scaling law was extended to a lower value of

2 A/s, and it was found that the decay amplitude was a factor of 2 less, not 5.

• PELP values used to go from one plateau to the other (even between the pre-injection and the injection plateau) affects the amount of decay. – This was concluded after comparing two different ramps which

were used in two separate measurement campaigns.• Decay also occurs when a stop for 0 s followed by a slow

acceleration (restart of PELP) is done.9/28/2010

Analysis of August-September measurements

CERN, FiDeL meeting, 28th September 2010

32

List of measurementsMeasurement name DescriptionMeasurement 1 Actual pre-cycle up to 6kA (up-10A/s, down-10A/s), physics run up to 6kA (up-2A/s, down-

10A/s)Measurement 2 Physics run as pre-cycle (up-2A/s, down-10A/s), physics run up to 6kA (up-2A/s, down-

10A/s) (#1 and #2 are combined in 1 measurement)

Measurement 3 Actual pre-cycle up to 6kA (up-10A/s, down-10A/s), physics run up to 6kA (up-10A/s, down-10A/s)

Measurement 4 Physics run as pre-cycle (up-10A/s, down-10A/s), physics run up to 6kA (up-10A/s, down-10A/s) (#3 and #4 are combined in 1 measurement)

Measurement 5 Physics run as pre-cycle (up-10A/s, down-10A/s), physics run up to 6kA (up-10A/s, down-10A/s), normal with no E

Measurement 6 Physics run as pre-cycle (up-10A/s, down-10A/s), physics run up to 6kA (up-10A/s, down-10A/s), 2 times normal, no E

Measurement 7 Physics run as pre-cycle (up-10A/s, down-10A/s), physics run up to 6kA (up-10A/s, down-10A/s), 4 times normal, no E

Measurement 8 Physics run as pre-cycle (up-10A/s, down-10A/s), physics run up to 6kA (up-10A/s, down-10A/s), 4 times normal, no E, no flattop

Measurement 9 Physics run as pre-cycle (up-10A/s, down-10A/s), physics run up to 6kA (up-10A/s, down-10A/s), 4 times normal, no E, fast parabolic

9/28/2010

33

Aim of the measurements

• Difference between using an actual pre-cycle as a pre-cycle and using the previous physics run as a pre-cycle

• Effect of ramping up with 2 A/s and ramping down with 10 A/s.

• Modifying the PELP

9/28/2010

34

Aim of measurements 1 to 4

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 180000

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

Time (s)

Cur

rent

(A)

meas 1+2

9/28/2010

• Difference between using an actual pre-cycle and a physics run as a pre-cycle• The effect of ramping up with 2 A/s and down with 10 A/s

• End of July, ramp up and ramp down rates of pre-cycle were 10 A/s, ramp up of physics run was 10 A/s and ramp down was 2 A/s

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 140000

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

Time (s)

Cur

rent

(A)

meas 3+4

35

Results of measurements 1 to 4

• No difference between using an actual pre-cycle or a physics run as a pre-cycle (within 20%)

• Decay amplitude depends on the ramp down rate (not ramp up rate)

9/28/2010

740 745 750 755 760 765 770 775 780 785 790-5.1

-5

-4.9

-4.8

-4.7

-4.6

-4.5

-4.4

-4.3

Current (A)

b 3 (uni

ts)

meas 3meas 4

740 745 750 755 760 765 770 775 780 785 790

-5.7

-5.6

-5.5

-5.4

-5.3

-5.2

-5.1

-5

Current (A)

b 3 (uni

ts)

meas 2meas 4

36

Measurements 4 and 5

• Aim:– Exponential part of the ramp removed (PLP)

• Result– No effect on the decay amplitude

9/28/2010

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 120000

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

Time (s)

Cur

rent

(A)

meas 4meas 5

740 745 750 755 760 765 770 775 780 785 790-5.1

-5

-4.9

-4.8

-4.7

-4.6

-4.5

-4.4

-4.3

Current (A)

b 3 (uni

ts)

meas 4meas 5

37

Measurements 5 to 7

• Aim– Increasing the P term in the PLP

• Result– No difference in the decay amplitude

9/28/2010

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 100000

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

Time (s)

Cur

rent

(A)

meas 5meas 6meas 7

38

Measurements 7 and 9

• Aim– Acceleration term in all ramps (except the actual ramp) was increased

• Result– Decay amplitude increase by 65%

9/28/2010

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 80000

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

Time (s)

Cur

rent

(A)

meas 7meas 9

740 745 750 755 760 765 770 775 780 785 790-5.4

-5.2

-5

-4.8

-4.6

-4.4

-4.2

Current (A)

b 3 (uni

ts)

meas 7meas 9

39

Measurements 7 and 9

• Result– Different path taken by measurement 9 because of the fast

acceleration used9/28/2010