1 / 28

Yuri Nosochkov (SLAC) Y. Cai, M.-H. Wang (SLAC)

Field Quality Requirements for Separation Dipoles and Matching Quadrupoles at Collision Energy Based on Dynamic Aperture. Yuri Nosochkov (SLAC) Y. Cai, M.-H. Wang (SLAC) S. Fartoukh, M. Giovannozzi, R. de Maria, E. McIntosh (CERN)

aden
Download Presentation

Yuri Nosochkov (SLAC) Y. Cai, M.-H. Wang (SLAC)

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. Field Quality Requirements for Separation Dipoles and Matching Quadrupoles at Collision Energy Based on Dynamic Aperture Yuri Nosochkov (SLAC) Y. Cai, M.-H. Wang (SLAC) S. Fartoukh, M. Giovannozzi, R. de Maria, E. McIntosh (CERN) 3rd Joint HiLumiLHC—LARP Meeting 11—15 November 2013, Daresbury, UK

  2. Introduction New large aperture magnets are planned for the HL-LHC lattice: superconducting 150 mm D1 and 105 mm D2 separation dipoles, 90 mm Q4 and 70 mm Q5 matching quadrupoles near IP1 and IP5. High beta functions in these magnets enhance sensitivity to their field errors causing reduction of dynamic aperture (DA). Field quality in these magnets needs to be evaluated and optimized to satisfy two conflicting requirements: the field errors must be small enough to provide a sufficient DA (~10s), but large enough to be realistically achievable. Estimates of field quality obtained from measured data and magnetic field calculations are used as a starting point for evaluation and optimization. Impact of the field errors on DA is determined in tracking simulations using SixTrack. Lattice: SLHCV3.1b with b*=15/15 cm at IP1 and IP5, SC IT quadrupoles with 150 mm coil diameter and 150 T/m gradient, 7 TeV beam energy.

  3. Beta functions High b-functions in the D1, D2, Q4, Q5 enhance beam sensitivity to their field errors. Field correctors for the IT also compensate the low order D1 field errors (n=3-6) since the two beams share the D1 aperture. 2-in-1 D2and Q4, Q5 magnets do not have local correctors. ≈180° Q5 Q4 D2 D1 D2 Q4 Q5 D1

  4. IT field quality specifications at r0 = 50 mm (“IT_errortable_v66”) These IT specifications is the result of previous optimization studies. In this study, the IT specification errors are always included.

  5. Q4 field errors at r0 = 30 mm (“Q4_errortable_v1”) Estimate is based on scaling from the measured field of existing MQY quadrupole with 70 mm aperture and applied to 90 mm Q4. This estimate is expected to be updated.

  6. Q5 expected field quality at r0 = 17 mm (“Q5_errortable_v0”) Estimate is based on the measured field of existing MQY quadrupole with 70 mm aperture which is of the same type as Q5.

  7. D1 expected field quality at r0 = 50 mm (“D1_errortable_v1”) Estimate is based on magnetic field calculations for 160 mm aperture D1 magnet (T. Nakamoto, E. Todesco, CERN-ACC-2013-002).

  8. D2 field errors at r0 = 35 mm (“D2_errortable_v3”) Estimate is based on magnetic field calculations for 2-in-1 D2 dipole (E. Todesco 01-Jan-2013). These values were obtained for a shorter magnet, therefore they may be potentially reduced for the longer D2. The large values of b2, b3, b4, b5 terms are due to field saturation.

  9. Latest D2 field estimate at r0 = 35 mm (“D2_errortable_v4”) The recent optimization of iron geometry and coil in D2 (E. Todesco) resulted in significant reduction of b2, b3, b4, b5 terms at collision energy (D2_errortable_v4). It also significantly reduced the mean values of b3 (95.8→3.8)and b5 (15→3.0) at injection energy. However, for most of this study, the D2_errortable_v3 was used as a reference table.

  10. Typical set-up for SixTrack tracking • 100,000 turns • 60 random error seeds • 30 particle pairs per amplitude step (2s) • 11 angles • 7 TeV beam energy • Initial Dp/p = 2.7e-4 • Tune = 62.31, 60.32 • Normalized emittance = 3.75 mm-rad • Arc errors and correction are included • IT local correctors to compensate an, bn errors of order n=3-6 in IT quads and D1 dipoles are included

  11. DA without D1, D2, Q4, Q5 errors This is our starting DA with only IT and arc errors included. The goal is to optimize D1, D2, Q4, Q5 errors in order to keep minimum DA near 10s.

  12. Kicks due to an, bn terms in D1, D2 at x=10sx (and similar for y’ from an) Largest kicks are produced by b2m, b3m, b4m in D2_v3 table. They are further amplified by ≈180° phase between left and right side D2 magnets around IP, and by the fact that mean bn terms of even order are of opposite sign in the left and right D2. These kicks are substantially reduced in the D2_v4 error table.

  13. Impact of large b2 in D2_v3 on DA Large b2 terms in D2_v3 table affect beta functions by increasing b* and reducing peak b in the IT. This reduces impact of IT, D1, D2 errors resulting in a larger DA. For comparison, bKL focusing strength from b2m=65 in one D2 is equivalent to ¼ of a regular arc quad or 7% of Q4. Beta perturbation from left side D2 is amplified by the right side D2. To maintain luminosity, this perturbation will be compensated in operation. To simulate such compensation and avoid too optimistic DA, we set b2=0 in D2 in all simulations.

  14. Example of beta perturbation due to b2 in D2_v3 IP beta IT peak beta X X b2=0 b2×3/8 b2×1/8 b2×2/8 b2×2/8 b2×1/8 b2×3/8 b2=0 Y Y

  15. Feed-down due to orbit in D1, D2 Beam trajectory in D1, D2 is, on average, horizontally offset relative to magnet axis resulting in lower order feed-down bn, an terms. Example for D2_v3 table: b4m=25 creates an average feed-down term <b3m>=3.6 (12% of main b3m), and b5m=-4 creates feed-down <b4m>=-0.77 (3% of main b4m). Feed-down effect on DA will be verified in tracking.

  16. Relative impact of Q4_v1, Q5_v0, D1_v1, D2_v3 errors Q4, Q5 errors have minimal effect on DA, hence are acceptable. D2 errors without b2, b3, b4, b5 are acceptable. D1 errors should be optimized. D2_v3

  17. Impact of bn in D1_v1 with D2 errors off Large DA reduction due to b7m, b9m. Consider b7m, b9m reduction by a factor of 2. D1 errors for n ≤ 6 are compensated using local IT correctors. 3rd, 6th, 9th order resonances 7th order resonances

  18. Scan of b5 in D2_v3 Effect of b5 in D2_v3 on DA is small. Minor effect from feed-down.

  19. Scan of b4 in D2_v3 Strong impact on DA requires a factor of 10 reduction of b4 relative to D2_v3 table. Feed-down has minor impact at reduced b4.

  20. Scan of b3 in D2_v3 Strong DA reduction requires a factor of 10 reduction of b3 relative to D2_v3 table. Feed-down effect is small.

  21. Sensitivity to b3, b4 uncertainty and random terms b3u,r should be reduced at least a factor of 2 relative to D2_v3 table. b4u,r impact is small.

  22. Scan of D2 b3m and b4m with other errors close to D2_v4 table Consider reducing b3m by a factor of 20 relative to D2_v3 (i.e. factor of 2 relative to D2_v4). D2_v4 value

  23. Recommended target for D1 field quality Reduce b7m and b9m a factor of 2 relative to D1_errortable_v1.

  24. Recommended target for D2 field quality 1) Use D2_errortable_v4 and further reduce b3m a factor of 2. 2) Minimize the b2 term or compensate its impact on beta function. Correction options are not yet decided, but may include adjustment of Q4 gradientor D2 spool-piece correctors.

  25. DA with Q4_v1, Q5_v0 and target D1, D2 errors Minimum DA is 9.9sdominated by vertical DA.

  26. DA with target D1, D2 errors versus original D1_v1, D2_v4 Most improvement is near the vertical plane: +0.5s for DAmin and +0.7s for DAave. Further increase of vertical DA may be possible by optimizing vertical phase advance between IP1 and IP5 (in SLHCV3.1b it is integer x 2p causing amplification of systematic error effects in vertical plane in the IP1 and IP5 magnets).

  27. Summary • Impact on DA from estimated field errors in the large aperture D1, D2 separation dipoles and Q4, Q5 matching quadrupoles in the SLHCV3.1b lattice has been evaluated. • The Q4, Q5 field errors were found to be acceptable. • Field error terms – b7m, b9m in D1, and b3m in D2 – were identified as having the most impact on the DA. In order to obtain the minimum DA near 10s, these three terms were reduced a factor of 2 relative to D1_errortable_v1 and D2_errortable_v4, respectively. • It is also critical to minimize the large D2 term b2 or compensate its impact on beta function. Correction options are not yet decided, but may include adjustment of Q4 strength orimplementation of D2 spool-piece correctors. • The feed-down effect due to offset orbit in the D1, D2 was found to be small. • In summary, the evolution of minimum DA in optimization is as follows: • With the IT errors and without D1, D2, Q4, Q5 errors the starting DAmin is 10.38s. • With the IT, Q4, Q5 errors and D1_v1, D2_v3 error tables the DA would be extremely small. • With the IT, Q4, Q5 errors and D1_v1, D2_v4 error tables before optimization DAmin is 9.36s. • With the IT, Q4, Q5 errors and optimized D1, D2 errors DAmin is 9.90s. • Further improvement of the minimum DA may be possible by optimizing vertical phase advance between IP1 and IP5.

More Related