The OP Viewpoint on the Accelerator Complex Controls Renovation

1. The OP Viewpoint on the Accelerator Complex Controls Renovation R. Steerenberg on behalf of the OP group 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. Accelerator Complex Controls Renovation Workshop 3 December 2008

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 Accelerator Complex Controls Renovation Workshop R. Steerenberg

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 notpart ofthe renovation • Some of these machine are under the responsibility of ABP (LINAC2, LINAC3 and LEIR) Accelerator Complex Controls Renovation Workshop R. Steerenberg

4. Aim of Renovation From OP Viewpoint • Modernize the present systems and increase their reliability and performance with enhancedfunctionalities • 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 Accelerator Complex Controls Renovation Workshop R. Steerenberg

5. Present situation (1) • SPShassuccessfullyrun 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) Accelerator Complex Controls Renovation Workshop R. Steerenberg

6. Present situation (2) • The PS complex is at the start of implementingINCA 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 Accelerator Complex Controls Renovation Workshop R. Steerenberg

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 Accelerator Complex Controls Renovation Workshop R. Steerenberg

8. Present situation (4) • LINAC3 • Renovationof rampingcavitiesand de-buncher control started in 2004, but neverfinished • Proper control software is missing • Only specialist application is available • Sufferedalso fromvacuumcontrolsrenovation • 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 manydevelopments have been ongoing (LSA) • Many surprisesaround the corner? Accelerator Complex Controls Renovation Workshop R. Steerenberg

9. OP’s Preferred Renovation Strategy • The renovation should preferably be done persystem 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 patchesto 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 Accelerator Complex Controls Renovation Workshop R. Steerenberg

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 establishaplanningincluding the required resources for the system to be renovated • They test, commissionand 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 Accelerator Complex Controls Renovation Workshop R. Steerenberg

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 ofriskshould 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 committedand the planning should be realistic to guarantee successfulvalidationin time • CO3 or project steering committee coordinates and plans the whole renovation to avoid duplication or multiple use of the same resources Accelerator Complex Controls Renovation Workshop R. Steerenberg

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 identifyall these specific cases, re-evaluate their need and provide general solutions for long term use by including enough flexibility. Accelerator Complex Controls Renovation Workshop R. Steerenberg

13. Specific requirements • More standardisation in the FESAclasspropertieswill make their useeasierwithinapplications: • 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 • Produceguidelinesto be followed to obtain a standard. • Technical solution, by providingstandardplug-inmodules • Where possible make a minimumnumberFESAclassesper system for all machines to avoid having large numbers of FESA classes with only small differences • Standardize there where possible the namingofsomemore general properties to ease semi-automatic population of tables etc. Accelerator Complex Controls Renovation Workshop R. Steerenberg

14. Accelerator Operation and Renovation • OP requires a minimum disturbance approachfor 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 timeduring 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 time Accelerator Complex Controls Renovation Workshop R. Steerenberg

15. Side effects • The renovation will also finalizethetransferofresponsibility for the PS complex front-ends (hardware + software) to the equipmentgroups, 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 diagnostictoolsto 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 ? Accelerator Complex Controls Renovation Workshop R. Steerenberg

16. OP Contribution • OP providesa substantialamountofmanpowerto help developing the control system (~ 8+ FTE): • The majoritydevelops specific and general applications • A substantial amount is contributing to genericsoftware • A fewpeopleare actively involved in the implementationof new or renovated systems within the controls environment • OP will continue to provide this manpower, but the resources should be planned correctly • OPpeople will be mostavailable 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.... Accelerator Complex Controls Renovation Workshop R. Steerenberg

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 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... R. Steerenberg

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