1. The OP Viewpoint on the Accelerator Complex Controls Renovation R. Steerenberg on behalf of the OP group Accelerator Complex Controls Renovation Workshop 3 December 2008 Accelerator Complex Controls Renovation Workshop 3 December 2008 Thanks to input of: M. Benedikt, C. Carli, P. Collier, K. Cornelis, T. Eriksson, K. Hanke, D. Kuchler, M. Lamont, S. Pasinelli, R. Scrivens, F. Tecker, J. Wenninger.

2. Agenda Scope Aim of Renovation From OP Viewpoint Present Situation (not exhaustive) OP’s Preferred Renovation Strategy Renovation Organisation Planning Close collaboration and specific requirements Accelerator Operation During Renovation Side Effects OP Contribution Conclusion 3 December 2008 R. Steerenberg 2 Accelerator Complex Controls Renovation Workshop

3. Scope The machines concerned are: LINAC2 PS Booster ISOLDE and REX PS AD (Recent publication: “AD consolidation for operation beyond 2010”) CTF3 LINAC3 LEIR SPS The work for LINAC4 project has to be added to this, limiting the available resources to a certain extend, but is not part of the renovation Some of these machine are under the responsibility of ABP (LINAC2, LINAC3 and LEIR) 3 December 2008 R. Steerenberg 3 Accelerator Complex Controls Renovation Workshop

4. Aim of Renovation From OP Viewpoint Modernize the present systems and increase their reliability and performance with enhanced functionalities Harmonisation of controls across all accelerators Better use of resources More widely spread knowledge Better or more available support Very positive to add non-LHC injectors to the renovation for the above mentioned reasons If they are left, old systems will have to be dragged along 3 December 2008 R. Steerenberg 4 Accelerator Complex Controls Renovation Workshop

5. Present situation (1) SPS has successfully run with LSA since the “big bang” at the start of 2006 Very tough year 2006 Still not completely finished (some legacy SW remaining) Still fine tuning LSA Stability is now needed to invest on the LHC as SPS and LHC teams and efforts are combined. Some worries ROCS MUGEF caused some problems and follow up is needed Partly renovated systems need to be completed Profile measurements: the replacement SW not yet fully available. No emittance calculation anymore etc. (loss of functionality) Additional ppm modes desirable (e.g. part. type) 3 December 2008 R. Steerenberg 5 Accelerator Complex Controls Renovation Workshop

6. Present situation(2) The PS complex is at the start of implementing INCA and eradicating X-motif The ‘old’ control system experts are becoming scarce A 3-tier system is now necessary due to fundamental changes in the low level software (scalability issues) Main focus is now on INCA, but the renovation goes beyond Renovation examples: BWS in PSB and PS: Initially the design (FESA + Application) was made for LHC and later adapted to SPS to be adapted again to PS Complex The implementation approach during the last part of the 2008 run was good and OP requirements were and are taken into account Vacuum control: Did and does still not fulfil OP requirements No prior consulting on the needs and the vacuum control is becoming an exception in the entire complex control system 3 December 2008 R. Steerenberg 6 Accelerator Complex Controls Renovation Workshop

7. Present situation(3) CTF are machines that evolve quickly and need therefore a flexible controls environment Fast implementation There where possible standard solutions, otherwise specific Many external collaborators developing SW, requiring good standards and support from CO (framework) AD consolidation is under consideration Point on the agenda of the Research Board of 5 December Complete renovation of some hardware and software Overhaul of the timing system, cycle generation, etc... Details in : “AD consolidation for operation beyond 2010” CERN-AB-2008-068 OP 3 December 2008 R. Steerenberg 7 Accelerator Complex Controls Renovation Workshop

8. Present situation(4) LINAC3 Renovation of ramping cavities and de-buncher control started in 2004, but never finished Proper control software is missing Only specialist application is available Suffered also from vacuum controls renovation LEIR Hybrid of LSA and ‘old’ PS controls and has therefore not a coherent approach for archiving Be aware that LEIR is now in a long shut down during which many developments have been ongoing (LSA) Many surprises around the corner? 3 December 2008 R. Steerenberg 8 Accelerator Complex Controls Renovation Workshop

9. OP’s Preferred Renovation Strategy The renovation should preferably be done per system and not per machine: Easier control over planning and resources Less diversity to handle Better coherency of similar systems across all accelerators Better chance to have general applications that suits the requirements of all accelerators for the system concerned Less needs to adapt systems with patches to fulfil requirements of other accelerators afterwards In general smaller impact on operational performance The renovation should be organized in vertical slices containing: Hardware  equipment group concerned (+ CO) Drivers, FESA, etc  equipment group concerned and CO (+ OP) INCA and Applications  CO + OP 3 December 2008 R. Steerenberg 9 Accelerator Complex Controls Renovation Workshop

10. Renovation organisation The renovation of each system (vertical slice) should be dealt with as a project: Agreement on planning and requirements by all parties Ensure allocated resources by and from all parties Put mini teams together from the different groups Make them responsible for a vertical slice to be renovated They will evaluate the impact of the renovation on the operational environment and establish a planning including the required resources for the system to be renovated They test, commission and validate the renovated system These mini teams should report to CO3 or a steering committee for the renovation project that ensures the resources (P+M) and officially validates the outcome of the mini teams 3 December 2008 R. Steerenberg 10 Accelerator Complex Controls Renovation Workshop

11. Planning OP has no strict requirements on the chronology of the renovation, but the planning should be based on the following criteria: Most critical systems in terms of risk should be given priority. (see Risk Analysis of S. Baird) Obsolete hardware with no spares policy All levels in the vertical slice should be ready or made ready to do the renovation (incl. Application) All resources (P+M) should be committed and the planning should be realistic to guarantee successful validation in time CO3 or project steering committee coordinates and plans the whole renovation to avoid duplication or multiple use of the same resources 3 December 2008 R. Steerenberg 11 Accelerator Complex Controls Renovation Workshop

12. Close collaboration In some cases the hardware will remain the same, but the FESA classes and the high level software will be renovated Close collaboration with CO and OP is required to avoid losing functionalities Example: The GM class POW-V will be renovated, but contains many specific requirement, which is presently dealt with using so-called treatment codes Renovation should identify all these specific cases, re-evaluate their need and provide general solutions for long term use by including enough flexibility. 3 December 2008 R. Steerenberg 12 Accelerator Complex Controls Renovation Workshop

13. Specific requirements More standardisation in the FESA class properties will make their use easier within applications: example: All FESA classes containing sampler like properties should use the same conventions/protocols. As a result a general application can automatically be configured and used to display the data in different forms Produce guidelines to be followed to obtain a standard. Technical solution, by providing standard plug-in modules Where possible make a minimum number FESA classes per system for all machines to avoid having large numbers of FESA classes with only small differences Standardize there where possible the naming of some more general properties to ease semi-automatic population of tables etc. 3 December 2008 R. Steerenberg 13 Accelerator Complex Controls Renovation Workshop

14. Accelerator Operation and Renovation OP requires a minimum disturbance approach for the renovation to maximize machine performance In case of renovation of critical systems the old system must remain as back up solution or continue to be available in parallel. (until the new system is fully validated) There where possible perform tests or pre-commissioning before the shutdown during which the new system will be deployed. This will leave time to make corrections and solve problems that showed up during these tests Allow enough time during the HW test period, cold check out period and the start up with beam period to test and validate the renovated system on all the machines concerned (have the controls system properly available) The accelerators should not be used as test bed, degrading their performance. However, request MD ti me 3 December 2008 R. Steerenberg 14 Accelerator Complex Controls Renovation Workshop

15. Side effects The renovation will also finalize the transfer of responsibility for the PS complex front-ends (hardware + software) to the equipment groups, which is already the case for SPS and LHC Nevertheless the general components in the front-ends remain under the CO responsibility OP would like to have enhanced, but simple diagnostic tools to determine in case of failure if the equipment group or CO needs to be called (e.g. at 2:00 am) What will be the future of the CO piquet service and the specialist service that works on best effort basis ? 3 December 2008 R. Steerenberg 15 Accelerator Complex Controls Renovation Workshop

16. OP Contribution OP provides a substantial amount of man power to help developing the control system (~ 8+ FTE): The majority develops specific and general applications A substantial amount is contributing to generic software A few people are actively involved in the implementation of new or renovated systems within the controls environment OP will continue to provide this manpower, but the resources should be planned correctly OP people will be most available for programming during the shutdown periods and have a limited availability during the run Good support from CO for standard tools (e.g. Graphs, tables, wheel switches, documentation, etc.) Established, supported and stable programming environment by using a maximum of standard tools and procedures (framework) Establish a clear responsibility strategy for applications.... 3 December 2008 R. Steerenberg 16 Accelerator Complex Controls Renovation Workshop

17. Conclusion Renovation per vertical slice as a project, using mini teams Impact, proposed planning and resources to be evaluated and approved by the CO3 or project steering committee OP requirements should be included they will operate the equipments daily. (impact on machine performance) OP would like to have a minimum disturbance approach Maximize machine performance Plan enough time for testing, commissioning and validation Standardize where possible the FESA class properties, protocols and naming, without compromising flexibility OP provides substantial amount of manpower Need good and stable development environment and support 3 December 2008 R. Steerenberg 17 Accelerator Complex Controls Renovation Workshop The renovation can only be successful and follow the minimum disturbance approach when all parties collaborate closely OP is ready for doing this...

18. A little irony, but..?!?… 3 December 2008 R. Steerenberg 18 Accelerator Complex Controls Renovation Workshop What we actually really needed was simple How it was supported What was operationally available How we got convinced How it was designed How it was understood How we specified it How the project was documented How the programmer wrote it