cavity database status j. kerby with thanks to the cavity database team mlscrf webex 9 dec 2009
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Cavity Database Status J. Kerby with thanks to the Cavity Database Team MLSCRF Webex 9 Dec 2009](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022082418/5697c00f1a28abf838cca961/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
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](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022082418/5697c00f1a28abf838cca961/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
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](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022082418/5697c00f1a28abf838cca961/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
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](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022082418/5697c00f1a28abf838cca961/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
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](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022082418/5697c00f1a28abf838cca961/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
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](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022082418/5697c00f1a28abf838cca961/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
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](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022082418/5697c00f1a28abf838cca961/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
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](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022082418/5697c00f1a28abf838cca961/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
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