Diagnostic tools at TLS and some case
studies on failure analysis
Yi Chih Liu
Operation group / Light source division
NSRRC
WAO 2012, 7 August
Outline
• Introduction
• Diagnostic tools
• Some case studies on failure analysis
Layout of TLS accelerators
BM2
3
History of TLS machine upgrades
Component
W200
U50
U90
EPU56
SWLS
SW60
SRF
IASWA
IASWB
IASWC
λ(mm)
λ(mm)
λ(mm)
λ(mm)
325.6(mm)
λ(mm)
SC RF cavity
60(mm)
60(mm)
60(mm)
Type
Hybrid
Hybrid
Hybrid
Pure
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
Bmax.
1.8
0.64
1.245
0.672
6
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.2
Installation
12/1994
10/1995
03/1997
04/1999
09/1999
04/2002
10/2004
12/2005
06/2009
02/2010
Location
sec. 5
sec.3
sec.6
sec.2
sec.1
sec.4
sec.4
arc
arc
arc
sec.6
sec.2
sec.4
(Tesla)
Operation
mode
Decay mode
Top-up mode (2005.10~now)
Evolution of diagnostic tools
• Failure analysis was used a ‘history’ program to trace the
information from 0.1 Hz or 10 Hz database – no kicker
waveform information, no booster information
• Monitor kicker waveform and linac parameters every injection
• Monitor all parameters of superconducting insertion device
using data acquisition recorder
• Monitor the parameters of SRF and record the data after trip
using data acquisition recorder
• Implement 96 channel digitizer to monitor the slow and fast
signals simultaneously
• Implement real time spectrum analyzer to monitor transient
tune shift
Classification rule for diagnostic tools
• 0.1 Hz/10 Hz data archive, trip of storage ring power supply
(OP)
• A 16 bits digitizer with 96 channels, superconducting
insertion device quench and interlock (instrument & control)
• 96 channel digitizer and with access program, SRF quench
and interlock (RF)
• Oscilloscope, real-time spectrum analyzer with access
program, kicker waveform and tune measurement (OP)
• Voltage sag recorder (Utility)
Waveforms capture
MATLAB-based analyzer
IASW-R4 Parameters
2011 Mar 25 Fri 09:11:33
1.9
2
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
1.9
2
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
1.9
2
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
1.9
2
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
1.9
2
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
1.9
2
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
1.9
2
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
1.9
2
2.1
2.2
2.3
Time (second)
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
200
0
1.8
4
2
0
1.8
1.5
1
0.5
0
-0.5
1.8
4
2
0
1.8
400
200
(Volt)
(Amp)
(mA)
4
2
0
1.8
400
--
0
1.8
5
0
-5
1.8
4
2
0
1.8
D-TACQ data analyzer
Failure analysis – case 1
Failure analysis – case 1
kicker waveform shifted during injection
Time
Failure analysis – case 2
Broken of power supply connector
Quadrupole current
Time
Failure analysis – case 2
When the connector started breaking
Failure analysis – case 3 Voltage sag
Failure analysis – case 3
Failure analysis – case 3
Failure analysis – case 3
General Parameters
--
2010 Jul 15 14:35:39
4
2
0
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
2.2
2.4
2.6
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
2.2
2.4
2.6
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
2.2
2.4
2.6
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
2.2
2.4
2.6
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
2.2
2.4
2.6
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
2.2
2.4
2.6
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
2.2
2.4
2.6
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
Time (second)
2.2
2.4
2.6
4
2
0
(mA)
400
200
0
4
2
0
1.5
1
0.5
0
-0.5
(Volt)
260
(Volt)
260
250
240
(Volt)
280
270
260
250
240
230
Failure analysis – case 3
2010-07-15 14:38:57
R6B4
6000
5000
R6B5
Vertical Position (m)
4000
3000
R6B6
2000
1000
R6B7
0
1
2
3
Time (msec)
4
5
6
Failure analysis – case 3
Normal fractional vertical tune
Failure analysis – case 4
Pr, Pf, tuner phase oscillated
Failure analysis – case 4
It correlated to LHe valve open of SW60
Failure analysis – case 4
event list and action items
Failure analysis – case 4
Comparison between before and after actions
Failure analysis – case 5
TFB was unstable during injection
Failure analysis – case 5
some examples
Failure analysis – case 5
the cause – a broken connector
Hybrid
Network
D TFB
Failure analysis – case 5
The missing part
Conclusion
• Communication is the only problem
• No common language no communication
• Diagnostic tools can help us communicate with
machine and people
• If communication is still a problem, there will
exist a missing information
• Improve the diagnostic tool again
Thank you for your attention!