1 / 22

FACET Facility Performance FY13

FACET Facility Performance FY13. SAREC Meeting . Christine Clarke, 25 th July 2013. 2013 Schedule -- FACET User Run 2. FACET User Run 2 – A New Philosophy Part 1. Lesson 1: Experiments need different beam configurations.

makara
Download Presentation

FACET Facility Performance FY13

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. FACET Facility Performance FY13 • SAREC Meeting Christine Clarke, 25th July 2013

  2. 2013 Schedule -- FACET User Run 2

  3. FACET User Run 2 – A New Philosophy Part 1 Lesson 1: Experiments need different beam configurations FACET Run 2 was divided into different configurations and experiments were scheduled according to configuration that best matched their request • “Pencil Beam” • 5e9 electrons/bunch, σz~600µm, σr <20µm • Low Charge, compressed • 1e10 electrons/bunch, σz~30µm, σr ~30µm • High Charge, compressed • 2e10 electrons/bunch, σz~30µm, σr ~30µm • High Charge, over-compressed/ 2 bunch studies • 2e10 electrons/bunch, R56 10 mm, σr ~30µm

  4. FACET User Run 2 – A New Philosophy Part 2 Lesson 2: The machine needs attention on a day-to-day level Emphasis was given on not delivering a beam to users that did not meet agreed-upon parameters. • Most of the beam time was therefore used for • machine development, • maintenance and • characterisationactivities • These occurred every day.

  5. FACET Run Dates • FACET Run: • Pencil Beam  3rd March – 24th March • Low Charge, compressed  24th March – 13th April • High Charge, compressed  13th April – 24th May • R56 10 mm and two-bunch generation  24th May – 1st July • High charge configuration was not scheduled initially • First plan was to go from low charge and compressed bunches to 2-bunch commissioning • Introduced high charge configuration after success of low charge Start-up Pencil beam Low Charge 2 bunch High Charge

  6. Scheduling Experiments • https://slacportal.slac.stanford.edu/sites/ard_public/facet/user/Pages/Schedule.aspx • Schedule was goal-driven (e.g. “expose samples”) • Typically focused on one experiment at a time • Not running experiments 24 hours a day meant: • Better support from facility staff • Better beam • Time to plan  Success User Beam Time delivered (hours) broken down by configuration. Commissioning of laser with beam by E200 is included.

  7. Beam time by experiment User Beam Time delivered (hours) broken down by experiment within each configuration. ** (plus 40 hours approx. parasitic)

  8. User Time Highly Productive • Better beam made experiments better • Essentially no tuning time and very little accelerator down time – few interruptions • Accelerator Operations team characterised beam prior to user shift • Better SLAC physicist support Total User Time broken down by beam status

  9. Experiment Procedures • User productivity gained from • Increased time between shifts • Goal-based experiment shifts with a focus on getting results • Shift Procedures key to getting results • Developed “template” over course of run • Procedure for operators as well as experimenters • FACET staff worked closely with users on procedures Progress during User Beam time was reported on the FACET website along with key beam parameters: https://portal.slac.stanford.edu/sites/ard_public/facet/Pages/PerformanceMetricsFY13.aspx

  10. Accessing FACET • Most accesses were scheduled for experiment installation and maintenance (~1 day per week) “PAMM” • A few accesses were “unscheduled” (on user beam time) due to hardware failures “User Access” Breakdown of FACET Accesses. Total hours = 1080 Commissioning laser for E200 required dedicated tunnel time

  11. FACET User Community

  12. Growing User Community • Total FACET user community grew including on-site, remote and data users (112 users to date for FY13) • On-site/badged users grew (50 on-site Users in FY12, 67 on-site Users so far in FY13) 34 different institutions represented by FACET Users ~half of the institutions are outside the US

  13. User Breakdown • 63% universities, 31% labs, 6% industry • 6 undergraduate students, 25 postgraduate students • All 6 undergraduate students and 18 of the 25 post-graduates are on-site (badged) users  students make up 37 % of all on-site FACET users On-Site Users only (outer ring) FACET Users by work classification All User types (inner ring)

  14. FACET User Organization • All Users are part of the FACET User Organization • In 2011, Patric Muggli was voted as FACET User Organization representative • Seat on SLUO Executive Committee – 3 year term • Gerard Andonian – NUFO representative for FACET

  15. Experiment Groups • E-200: Multi-GeVPlasma Wakefield Acceleration Experiments • PIs: Chan Joshi, Mark Hogan, Patric Muggli • SLAC, UCLA, MPI, Duke, University of Oslo, Stanford University, ENSTA ParisTech • E-201: Wakefield Acceleration in Dielectric Structures • PIs: James Rosenzweig, Mark Hogan, Patric Muggli • UCLA, SLAC, MPI, RadiaBeam

  16. Experiment Groups • E-202: Ultrafast processes in Magnetic Materials • PI: Hermann Durr • SLAC, Stanford, University of Regensburg, IBM-Zurich • E-203: Single-shot determination of the time profile of fs long bunches by means of coherent Smith-Purcell radiation • PI: Armin Reichold • Oxford, LAL-Orsay, Synchrotron-Soleil, Universite Paris-Sud, Valencia U IFIC, LANL • E-204: Testing of metallic periodic structures at FACET • PIs: Sami Tantawi, Valery Dolgashev • SLAC

  17. Experiment Groups • E-205: High-Gradient Dielectric Wakefield Measurements • PI: Alexey Kanareykin • Euclid, ANL • E-206: Characterizing Terahertz Radiation from the FACET Beam • PI: Alan Fisher • SLAC • E-207: High-Gradient THz-scale Two-Channel Coaxial Dielectric Wake Field Accelerator Experiment • PI: Sergey Shchelkunov • Yale, Omega-P, KIPT

  18. Experiment Groups • E-208: Direct measurements of the transverse long-range wake-fields of CLIC main linac accelerating structures • PI: A. Grudiev • CERN, University of Oslo • E-209: Study of the Self-Modulation of Long Lepton Bunches in Dense Plasmas and its Application to Advanced Acceleration Techniques • PI: Jorge Vieira, Patric Muggli, Mark Hogan • Technical University of Lisbon, MPI, SLAC, UCLA, USC • E-210: Trojan Horse Plasma Wakefield Acceleration • PIs: James Rosenzweig, Bernhard Hidding • UCLA, University of Hamburg, University of Dusseldorf, MPI, RadiaBeam, SLAC

  19. Experiment Groups • E-211: Experimental verification of the effectiveness of linear collider final-focus feedbacks and alignment algorithms • PI: Andrea Latina • CERN, University of Oslo • E-212: Radiation from GeV electrons in diamond with intensities approaching the amplified radiation regime • PI: Ulrik Uggerhoj • Aarhus University, University of Ferrara, Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies, SLAC, CERN, TRIUMF, University of New Mexico, University of Amsterdam, Johannesburg University

  20. Future Schedule - FACET User Run 3 and beyond

  21. Current FY14 Plans • Start FACET at beginning of next Fiscal Year (~October1st) – after LCLS • Start commissioning of positrons from positron target • Set up electron beam for 2-bunch configuration in Sector 20 • Primary users are PWFA and DWA studies • Laser will also be operational • FACET will not operate over the Winter shutdown • FACET will restart ~1stFebruary 2014

  22. Goals for Future Operations • We want to maximise User Time whilst keeping productivity high • Grow our user base with new experiments • More FACET staff to continue to work closely with users • In FY14, a greater proportion of beam time can be for users: • Bulk of laser commissioning done- less time in access required next time • Beam configurations well understood and documented- less machine development required to repeat them

More Related