Orbit feedback robustness tests and System identification for FACET
Orbit Feedback Control
description
Transcript of Orbit Feedback Control
Ralph Steinhagen , Orbit Feedback Control - Prototyping at the SPS 1
Orbit Feedback Control
A. Controller
B. I. data acquisition II. control algorithm III. sending the corrections to the machine IV. Performance of the feedback
C. ToDo‘s
Prototyping at the SPSResults from the studies of the LHC Orbit Feedback
Ralph Steinhagen, AB-OP-SPS
Ralph Steinhagen , Orbit Feedback Control - Prototyping at the SPS 2
Data Acquisition in BA5
•Acquired additionally the common SPS monitor data
•Increased sampling frequency of the electronic up to 100 Hz(!):
very nice!
The sampling frequency should be at least 20-30 times higher than the highest frequency one wants to correct
Ralph Steinhagen , Orbit Feedback Control - Prototyping at the SPS 3
Data Acquisition at 100 Hz
Manipulating, measuring and correction the orbit at 100Hz:
excitation:
feedback:
zoom:
Ralph Steinhagen , Orbit Feedback Control - Prototyping at the SPS 4
Data Acquisition - Calibration
cross-callibration with standard SPS monitors
•slope: will later be applied as a calibration factor in the acq. system,direct correlation to the calibration of the SPS monitors
•now: through time changing calibration factors-> further investigation
Slope for BPM.517 = 0.8 instead of „1“
Ralph Steinhagen , Orbit Feedback Control - Prototyping at the SPS 5
Data Acquisition - Intensity Dependency
Shift of mean orbit after changing the intensity (scraping) of the beam.
Examples:
Begin: I ~ 3-6 E11
End: I ~ 1-2 E11
Start of scraping
Ralph Steinhagen , Orbit Feedback Control - Prototyping at the SPS 6
Data Acquisition – Gaps in Acquisition
found gaps in data stream acquisition:
Systematic, load independent (T~230ms every 26 s 4 s):
not acquired/send? loss due to OS architecture?
load dependent:
dropped packets due to network architecture (10BaseT)
dropped/not received packets cause a decrease of the effective sampling frequency -> decrease of max. correction frequency
-> cause for instabilities
delay from measurement to delivering the packet is small but needs to be known and precisely defined
Load dependent systematic
Ralph Steinhagen , Orbit Feedback Control - Prototyping at the SPS 7
What Happens When Data Is Lost:
Packet is dropped:
the max. frequency one can correct drops and the feedback is unstable for former stable frequency:
Load dependent systematic
One can prevent this by:
• reducing the max. frequency (low pass filter)-> worse performance (factor 2n, n = # of consecutive lost packets)
• polynomial interpolation of BPM reading (continuous, n- times differentiable)-> high complexity (increase of delay -> decrease of max. frequency)
Ralph Steinhagen , Orbit Feedback Control - Prototyping at the SPS 8
Controller in PCR
Controller works in two domains: space domain & time domain
space domain (x/y over s):
Problem: find the appropriate corrector strength to minimize the deposition of the closed orbit with the respect to the reference orbit:
Chosen solution:
Singular Value Decomposition (SVD):
•small corrector strength
•easy method of eliminating singular solution (Eigenvalue problem)
•main complex calculation of the pseudo inverse Matrix need to be done only once for a certain set up, then the correction can be done through a simple matrix multiplication (fix. ):
d
.. refmon xxx
)( 2nO
xMd
M
Ralph Steinhagen , Orbit Feedback Control - Prototyping at the SPS 9
Controller in PCR – Space Domain
Simulated distorted orbit
Computed SVD correction
Corrected orbit (distorted +SVD)
Simulation wit MAD:
Ralph Steinhagen , Orbit Feedback Control - Prototyping at the SPS 10
Controller in PCR – Space Domain
added additional 2 cods on both sides to close the solution
-> local SVD solution
the ring outside of the selected area is not affected by the solution
opens the possibility to do ‚parallel‘ parallel MD (parasitic)
test for the future: e.g. faster stabilisation of the beam in the collimation section than a global correction
effect of the closed SVD solution on the global Orbit
Ralph Steinhagen , Orbit Feedback Control - Prototyping at the SPS 11
Controller in PCR – Time Domain
time domain (x/y over t):
Problem: find the appropriate corrector strength to minimize the deposition of the changing closed orbit.
Chosen solution:
1rd order: feedback loop with a Proportional Integral Controller (PIC):
d
m-dim.
m: #monitors; n: #correctors
n-dim.
slower but good to compensate steady state errors (known and unknown) induced by errors of other components in the system (LHC)
good for keeping a certain solution (orbit position)
Ralph Steinhagen , Orbit Feedback Control - Prototyping at the SPS 12
Controller in PCR – Response Functions
SVD: GSVD=e-s(aij) ~O(n2) ms(aij): pseudo inv. Matrix
PIC: GPIC=(Kp – Ki/s) Kp: proportional gain
Ki: integral gain
BPM: GBPM=Ci e-s(aij) Ci: Calibration factor
Physics: GPhysic=(bij) (bij): response matrix of the machine (MAD, linear optics)
PC:
+ computed model of G(s)
G(s) is the combined response function of the power converter (PC), PC-controller and its connected load (SPS cod - magnet)
Ralph Steinhagen , Orbit Feedback Control - Prototyping at the SPS 13
Power Converter
The feedback server send its correction via Ethernet back to the power converter (PC) in BA5.
Why prototyping at the SPS when the main part (PC+magnets) seem to behave completely different (SPS~ 0.5s <-> LHC~ 120s)?
It is possible to decompose and later recombine the whole systems response function and to exchange the response of the SPS PC-magnet combination (GSPS(s)) with the response function for the LHC PC-Magnets combination (GLHC(s)).
With this simple exchange of functions one can accurately predict the feedback behaviour with a real LHC-PC and load.
But this function needs to be modelled and MEASURED !!
This measurement could be performed in two month – we hope !!
Replaced by GLHC(s)
Ralph Steinhagen , Orbit Feedback Control - Prototyping at the SPS 14
PC - Response and Stability
G(s) can be reconstructed from the observed amplitude and phase response
1
2log20A
AMagnitude
reference
response
Ralph Steinhagen , Orbit Feedback Control - Prototyping at the SPS 15
PC – Accessing the Grid via UDP/10BaseT
Buffering of packets in network infrastructure and servers causes distortion, additional delay and overflows to next cycle segment.
Effect very common in each part of the controller and is load depended (interfering of realtime and non-realtime data streams)
-> faster processing of packets and no buffering of data packets where necessary
additional delay
Distortion due to step-by-step processing of buffered data.
overflow
desired stable signal
Ralph Steinhagen , Orbit Feedback Control - Prototyping at the SPS 16
Controller- Response and Stability
a stable feedback system must fit two criteria:
1. the desired controlled frequency has to be below the bandwidth of the system.The bandwidth is determined by L,R (and C) of the PC circuit (1rd order) and its controlling algorithm (2nd order).
2. phase: !
the phase is determined by:
• the used circuit (L,R and C)
• the overall delay of the system
d= f (increases linear with the frequency)
e.g. a total delay of 0.1 s limits the control system to f = 2.5Hz
-> the delays have to be as small as possible and for the lag compensation well defined (constant)
2
Ralph Steinhagen , Orbit Feedback Control - Prototyping at the SPS 17
Controller- Performance
The response function of the whole feedback system was measured:
ramp
injection at 26 GeV
450 GeV
no feedback:
with feedback:
with feedback (zoom):
Ralph Steinhagen , Orbit Feedback Control - Prototyping at the SPS 18
Controller- Performance
10 Hz sampling
20 Hz sampling
100 Hz sampling
50 Hz sampling
Reasonable correction stability (high beta) for f << 1 Hz (limited by BPM noise):
x ~ 30 (20) m
Ralph Steinhagen , Orbit Feedback Control - Prototyping at the SPS 19
Controller- Performance Example
Limited by hfrq. BPM noise
will later be reduced by a filter
Ralph Steinhagen , Orbit Feedback Control - Prototyping at the SPS 20
To-do‘s: End 2003 -> 2004
Input:• reducing dead times and packet drops
• changing of calibration factors need to be understood and suppressed
Controller:• space domain: ‘final’ strategy for LHC (global<->local), optimising the local SVD
correction
• time domain: multidimensional lag compensation (1-dim. -> Smith predictor, modelling of response functions and
algorithms, optimising with filter)
Output:• Measurement of the frequency response of LHC PC with a standard load
All:• the response function for each component needs to be precisely known and deterministic (!!)
• reliability of the systems needs to be enhanced
• scaling of the solution which works in the SPS to the dimension of the LHC
• model should as always be proven by experimental results
Ralph Steinhagen , Orbit Feedback Control - Prototyping at the SPS 21
Controller- Response and Stability
instable
Stableperformance ~ 1- cos()
our delay ~ 5ms
Ralph Steinhagen , Orbit Feedback Control - Prototyping at the SPS 22
Data Acquisition – Power Spectrum BPM
With additional signal
Ralph Steinhagen , Orbit Feedback Control - Prototyping at the SPS 23
Dummy