cavity database status j. kerby with thanks to the cavity database team mlscrf webex 9 dec 2009

8
Cavity Database Status J. Kerby with thanks to the Cavity Database Team MLSCRF Webex 9 Dec 2009

Upload: norman-nelson

Post on 19-Jan-2016

220 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Cavity Database Status J. Kerby with thanks to the Cavity Database Team MLSCRF Webex 9 Dec 2009

Cavity Database Status

J. Kerby with thanks to the Cavity Database TeamMLSCRF Webex

9 Dec 2009

Page 2: Cavity Database Status J. Kerby with thanks to the Cavity Database Team MLSCRF Webex 9 Dec 2009

Motivation• Common data sample, well defined data cuts

– Everyone uses the same data to make plots – a common denominator in yield calculations

– Data cuts can be easily specified, and anyone could reproduce your results• Data entry rules for reliable and reproducible results

– All RF tests from the last couple of years are included; may be flagged for exclusion

– Uniform criteria for data entry: only allowed values for as many as possible items– Define everything which might vary or have underlying subtleties, e.g., “LABX#1"

might be a final surface treatment referenced as a well-defined recipe anyone can look up

– No private/sensitive vendor data– Anything referred to in a comment field must be for information only, and not data

selection purposes– Minimize effort required for compliance– Provide regular updates at predetermined (by Akira) times

Page 3: Cavity Database Status J. Kerby with thanks to the Cavity Database Team MLSCRF Webex 9 Dec 2009

Original Plan FALC meeting July 13, 2009

– Provide an example plot of production yield, citing caveats (whatever they are at the time)

• Using preliminary and incomplete data for past 2-3 years from the simple Excel spreadsheet format, no web interface

– Provide the people list, and the plan End July 2009: Determine whether DESY DB is viable option, and timescale for

implementation• ALCPG/GDE Sept. 28 - Oct. 2, 2009

Dataset is web-based (thanks to support by DESY)– Some well-checked, easily explainable, and near-final plots available for

discussion such as• Production yield

Qualified vendors New vendors

Process yield Time evolution of some quantities

• End Nov. 2009: With colleagues’ input, finalize DB tool, web interface, standard plots, possibly with longer-term tool improvement plans

• NOW: Production 4 included; DB tool in Beta test; final cross checks of data; development of plotting routines underway

• Production of Chapter 4 Fig 4.1.1 this week; 4.1.2(?) as well but not from same source (needs to be fixed longer term)

Page 4: Cavity Database Status J. Kerby with thanks to the Cavity Database Team MLSCRF Webex 9 Dec 2009

Electropolished 9-cell cavities

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

>10 >15 >20 >25 >30 >35 >40

max gradient [MV/m]

yie

ld [

%]

JLab/DESY (combined) up-to-second successful test of cavities from qualified vendors - ACCEL+ZANON (26 cavities)

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

cavity

D Ea

cc (

2nd - 1

st) [M

V/m

]

Electropolished 9-cell cavities

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

>10 >15 >20 >25 >30 >35 >40

max gradient [MV/m]

yiel

d [

%]

JLab/DESY (combined) first successful test of cavities from qualified vendors - ACCEL+ZANON (31 cavities)

4

Compare 1st and 2nd pass yields, qualified vendors

1st pass

2nd passimprovement

degradation

yield is improved after 2nd pass

As presented at AD&I; 4 Dec cross checks showed two Prod 4 cavities w/o 120 C bake that should be removed

Page 5: Cavity Database Status J. Kerby with thanks to the Cavity Database Team MLSCRF Webex 9 Dec 2009

New Vendors: MHI and AES

• Performance of first cavities was poor – now improving!• First four from each vendor produced differently, therefore start

including starting from number 5

Page 6: Cavity Database Status J. Kerby with thanks to the Cavity Database Team MLSCRF Webex 9 Dec 2009

New Vendor Improvement: First successful testElectropolished 9-cell cavities

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

AES MHI

New Vendor Production#

gra

die

nt

[MV

/m]

.

Production 1 Production 2

Page 7: Cavity Database Status J. Kerby with thanks to the Cavity Database Team MLSCRF Webex 9 Dec 2009

Electropolished 9-cell cavities

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

>10 >15 >20 >25 >30 >35 >40

max gradient [MV/m]

yiel

d [

%]

JLab/DESY (combined) first successful test of cavities from qualified vendors - ACCEL+ZANON (31 cavities)

New Vendors (AES+MHI) - 18 cavities

7

Compare first-pass of new/established vendors

As presented at AD&I; 4 Dec cross checks showed two Prod 4 cavities w/o 120 C bake that should be removed

Page 8: Cavity Database Status J. Kerby with thanks to the Cavity Database Team MLSCRF Webex 9 Dec 2009

Summary• Database team has done an excellent job executing their

plan – C.M.Ginsburg, R. Geng, S. Aderhold, K. Yamamoto, Z. Conway– Important support from D. Gall, V. Gubarev, S. Yasar & DESY

Mgmt

• Database expected to be ‘on-line’ in the next couple of weeks

• For SB2009 two separate plots will be generated and inserted side-by-side: 1st pass and 2nd pass production yields, including Accel/RI, Zanon, and AES5-9 (include those DESY production 4 cavities with "standard-EP." MHI cavities will not be included.

• Further development of interfaces towards a ‘standard’ set of plots