Case study: Energy deposition in superconducting magnets in IR7 AMT Workshop A.Ferrari, M.Magistris, M.Santana, V.Vlachoudis CERN Fri 4/3/2005.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Collimation with retracted TCSGs R. Bruce, R. Kwee, S. Redaelli.
Advertisements

EXTRACTION BEAM LOSS AT 1 TEV CM WITH TDR PARAMETERS Y. Nosochkov, G. White August 25, 2014.
K. Potter RADWG & RADMON Workshop 1 Dec WELCOME TO THE 4th RADWG & RADMON WORKSHOP 1 December 2004.
Critical beam losses during Commissioning & Initial Operation Guillaume Robert-Demolaize (CERN and Univ. Joseph Fourier, Grenoble) with R. Assmann, S.
Shielding Studies using MARS Monte Carlo code Noriaki Nakao (SLAC) Jan. 6, 2005, WORKSHOP Machine-Detector Interface at ILC, SLAC.
GRD - Collimation Simulation with SIXTRACK - MIB WG - October 2005 LHC COLLIMATION SYSTEM STUDIES USING SIXTRACK Ralph Assmann, Stefano Redaelli, Guillaume.
Loss maps of RHIC Guillaume Robert-Demolaize, BNL CERN-GSI Meeting on Collective Effects, 2-3 October 2007 Beam losses, halo generation, and Collimation.
The HiLumi LHC Design Study is included in the High Luminosity LHC project and is partly funded by the European Commission within the Framework Programme.
ILC RTML Lattice Design A.Vivoli, N. Solyak, V. Kapin Fermilab.
PS Booster Studies with High Intensity Beams Magdalena Kowalska supervised by Elena Benedetto Space Charge Collaboration Meeting May 2014.
Status of Phase II Energy Loss Studies 1. FLUKA with “simple” CERN-provided input file modeling ~40m around primary collimators used for all SLAC studies.
Concept of a Collimation System with Enhanced Operational Stability and Performance.
LER Workshop, CERN, October 11-12, 2006Detector Safety with LER - Henryk Piekarz1 LHC Accelerator Research Program bnl-fnal-lbnl-slac Accelerator & Detector.
Beam Background Simulations for HL-LHC at IR1 Regina Kwee-Hinzmann, R.Bruce, A.Lechner, N.V.Shetty, L.S.Esposito, F.Cerutti, G.Bregliozzi, R.Kersevan,
DS Heat Load Scenarios in Collision Points and Cleaning Insertions. Prepared by F. Cerutti, A.Lechner and G. Steele on behalf of the FLUKA team (EN-STI)
Preparation of Review R. Assmann et al CWG, CWG R. Assmann.
Bus-Bar Quench Studies Summary of Available Calculations LMC Meeting August 5 th 2009 Bus-Bar Quench Studies Summary of Available Calculations LMC Meeting.
Optimization of Field Error Tolerances for Triplet Quadrupoles of the HL-LHC Lattice V3.01 Option 4444 Yuri Nosochkov Y. Cai, M-H. Wang (SLAC) S. Fartoukh,
Background Simulations for the LHCb Beam Condition Monitor Overview: ● The LHCb Beam Condition Monitor (BCM) – Purpose, Design and Function – Implementation.
Updates on FLUKA simulations of TCDQ halo loads at IR6 FLUKA team & B. Goddard LHC Collimation Working Group March 5 th, 2007.
Simulations of TCT beam impacts for different scenarios R. Bruce, E. Quaranta, S. RedaelliAcknowledgement: L. Lari, C. Bracco, B. Goddard.
Collimator and beamline heating External Review of the LHC Collimation Project CERN Wed 30/6/2004.
1 Question to the 50GeV group 3GeV からの 54π と 81π 、 6.1π の関係 fast extraction 部の acceptance (81π?) Comments on neutrino beamline optics?
LER Workshop, October 11, 2006LER & Transfer Line Lattice Design - J.A. Johnstone1 LHC Accelerator Research Program bnl-fnal-lbnl-slac Introduction The.
Energy deposition studies at IR7 M. Santana, M. Magistris, A. Ferrari, V. Vlachoudis Collimation collaboration meeting
Simulation comparisons to BLM data E.Skordis On behalf of the FLUKA team Tracking for Collimation Workshop 30/10/2015 E. Skordis1.
Heat Deposition Pre-Evaluation In the context of the new cryo-collimator and 11-T dipole projects we present a review of the power deposition studies on.
Update on radiation estimates for the CLIC Main and Drive beams Sophie Mallows, Thomas Otto CLIC OMPWG.
Chamonix 2006, B.Dehning 1 Commissioning of Beam Loss Monitors B. Dehning CERN AB/BDI.
LHC off-momentum collimation simulation Hector Garcia Morales Royal Holloway University of London Roderik Bruce, Danielle Mirarchi, Belen Salvachua, Kyrre.
Beam Induced Quench Session 2: quench test at LHC B. Dehning, C. Bracco.
Shielding the 140 mm option F. Cerutti, L.S. Esposito on behalf of CERN FLUKA team.
Energy deposition with and without IR3 upgrade Predicted energy deposition with and without IR3 (IR7)dispersion suppressor collimators. Gain from collimators.
Collimation design considerations at CERN (with some applications to LHC) R. Bruce on behalf of the CERN LHC collimation project R. Bruce,
HF2014 Workshop, Beijing, China 9-12 October 2014 Challenges and Status of the FCC-ee lattice design Bastian Haerer Challenges.
Overview of FLUKA Energy Deposition and Design Studies for the LHC Overview of FLUKA Energy Deposition and Design Studies for the LHC M. Brugger, F. Cerutti,
J-Parc Neutrino Facility Primary Proton Beam Design A. K. Ichikawa(KEK), Y.Iwamoto(KEK) and K.Tanabe(Tokyo) et.al. 7 th Nov. 2003,
Field Quality Specifications for Triplet Quadrupoles of the LHC Lattice v.3.01 Option 4444 and Collimation Study Yunhai Cai Y. Jiao, Y. Nosochkov, M-H.
2 nd BLMTWG meeting, B. Auchmann, O. Picha, with A. Lechner.
MAIN DUMP LINE: BEAM LOSS SIMULATIONS WITH THE TDR PARAMETERS Y. Nosochkov E. Marin, G. White (SLAC) LCWS14 Workshop, Belgrade, October 7, 2014.
Halo Collimation of Protons and Heavy Ions in SIS-100.
ENERGY DEPOSITION AND TAS DIAMETER
Energy deposition by radiation: the CERN experience with FLUKA WAMDO Workshop A.Ferrari, M.Magistris, A.Presland, M.Santana, A.Tsoulou,V.Vlachoudis CERN.
Status of the magnet studies in the ARCS (FLUKA)
R.W. Assmann, V. Boccone, F. Cerutti, M. Huhtinen, A. Mereghetti
Alignment and beam-based correction
On behalf of the FLUKA team
S. Roesler (on behalf of DGS-RP)
Problem: A kicker failure can deposit 9 x 1011 protons on any metallic
Large Booster and Collider Ring
Progress in Collimation study
Energy deposition studies in IR7 for HL-LHC
Beam collimation for SPPC
Status of energy deposition studies in IR3
Interpretation and use of BLM Data
CASA Collider Design Review Retreat Other Electron-Ion Colliders: eRHIC, ENC & LHeC Yuhong Zhang February 24, 2010.
Beam-Induced Energy Deposition Studies in IR Magnets
The 4th International Particle Accelerator Conference, IPAC13
Progress of SPPC lattice design
Collimation for beta-beams
LHC Collimation Requirements
Optic design and performance evaluation for SPPC collimation systems
Collider Ring Optics & Related Issues
1st HiLumi LHC / LARP Collaboration Meeting 2011 Nov 17th
Why do BLMs need to know the Quench Levels?
Beam Loss Simulations LHC
Status of energy deposition studies IR7
FLUKA Energy deposition simulations for quench tests
Study of Beam Losses and Collimation in JLEIC
LHC Physics Debris Simulation Update
Presentation transcript:

Case study: Energy deposition in superconducting magnets in IR7 AMT Workshop A.Ferrari, M.Magistris, M.Santana, V.Vlachoudis CERN Fri 4/3/2005

2 Overview Motivation Geometry and Simulation setup Studies: Heat on the superconducting magnets  Absorbers Summary

3 LHC Cleaning Insertions Two warm LHC insertions are dedicated to beam cleaning Collimation systems: IR3: Momentum cleaning IR7: Betatron cleaning Normal operation: 0.2 hours beam lifetime 4×10 11 p/s for 10 s Power = 448 kW Quench limit: 5 mW/cm 3

4 E6C6 IP7 A6 C6E6 UJ76 RR77 RR73 LHC optics files V6.5 Top beam energy Primary collimators:6  Secondary collimators:7  Absorbers:10  IR7 layout IR7 Layout contains over 200 objects Warm section 2 Dispersion suppressors Collimators with variable positioning of the jaws  Challenging simulation work

5 Geometry Implementation Dynamic FLUKA input generation with several ad-hoc scripts Detailed description of about 20 prototypes located in a virtual parking zone. Magnetic field maps: Analytic + 2D Interpolated Prototypes are replicated with the LATTICE card, rotated and translated. Adjust the collimators planes during runtime! Dynamic generation of the ARC (curved section) Optics test: Tracking up to 5 , both vertical / horizontal, reproduce beta function

6 Geometry of Dipoles Tesla 14m long objects with a field of 8 Tesla: 5mrad bend  ~3cm sagitta The superconducting dipoles (MB) are made out of 4 straight sections to accommodate the trajectory

7 IR7 Virtual Tour

8 Primary Inelastic collisions map Generated by the COLLTRACK V5.4 program 3 scenarios: Vertical, Horizontal and Skew Pencil beam of 7 TeV low-beta beam on primary collimators 100 turns without diffusion Impact parameter:  Spread in the non-collimator plane: 200  m Recording the position and direction of the inelastic interactions FLUKA source: Force an inelastic interaction on the previously recorded positions Beam Loss Map

9 Absorbers Layout A6is marginally valid B7was suppressed after contacting the integration team A7initially it was moved 5m upstream: A7’ afterwards it was moved 7m more upstream (12m): A7’’

10 NoAbsorbers A6vC6Eh6v Absorbers RR77 RR73 Dose (Gy/y) UJ76 Flux (cm -2 /y) A6v C6h E6v beam1 beam2 E6v C6h A6v Mean values ± 2m horizontally and ± 1m vertically. NoAbsorber vs. Absorber (tunnel)

11 Power density on the MBB8 Dipole Scoring the energy deposition in a 3D mesh (R-Z-phi) on the coils of the SC elements 3 abs. in straight section; 1 abs A7’’ for the curved section

12 Energy Deposition Results of energy deposition in the sensitive areas of IR7 for Different absorbers. Units:Absorbers in W Magnetic elements in mW/cm 3 ? – Simulation is still running or not performed

13 Energy Deposition in the curved section 3 abs. in straight section; No abs. or 1 abs. for the curved section

14 Simulation Accuracy Sources of errors: Physics modeling: Uncertainty in the inelastic p-A extrapolation cross section at 7 TeV lab Uncertainty in the modeling used  Factor ~1.3 on integral quantities like energy deposition (peak included) while for multi differential quantities the uncertainty can be much worse Layout and geometry assumptions It is difficult to quantify, experience has shown that a factor of 2 can be a safe limit Beam grazing at small angles on the surface of the collimators. Including that the surface roughness is not taken into account  A factor of 2 can be a safe choice. Safety factor from the COLLTRACK program is not included!

15 Conclusions Detailed description of the IR7 setup, with dynamic generation of all the necessary input files using the latest optics. Powerful tool used for various studies: Energy deposition on Collimators, Warm Objects, Superconducting magnets Si Damage calculations, Shielding studies for electronics Ozone production… From the present talk: With 4 absorbers we are below the quench limit of 5mW/cm 3 assuming a safety factor of 2-3. At least 2 absorbers are needed in the straight section At least 1 absorber is needed in the curved section The further away you place the absorber the less effective it is. From A7’ to A7’’, 7m more  Increase a factor of 1.5 on the MBA8 Pending: Before freezing the layout of the absorbers at IR7. Introduce passive absorbers for the warm elements and scrappers Include the effect of the tertiary halo on the absorbers it self. Finalize all simulations Info:

16 Energy Deposition in the curved section ElementPower (W)ErrPower (W)Err MQ72.572%0.813% MBA89.129%3.611% MBB82.035%5.18% MQ82.283%0.529% MBA93.617%1.515% MBB94.617%1.415% MQ90.389%0.230% MBA %0.240% MBB %0.436% MQ %0.234% MBA %0.825% MBB %0.922% MQ %0.0666% A7’’ 3 Absorbers in straight section; No abs. in curved, A7’’ in curved no