1 / 24

What we may gain with the sorting at MEB

What we may gain with the sorting at MEB. Presented by L. Bottura for the MEB Session 4 - Magnetic Requirements for Commissioning Divonnix, January 2006. Outline. Our mission statement Sorting in practice: the MB’s Macro-sorting Skimming/sifting the FQ Geometry classes Examples SSS’s

breena
Download Presentation

What we may gain with the sorting at MEB

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. What we may gain with the sorting at MEB Presented by L. Bottura for the MEB Session 4 - Magnetic Requirements for Commissioning Divonnix, January 2006

  2. Outline • Our mission statement • Sorting in practice: the MB’s • Macro-sorting • Skimming/sifting the FQ • Geometry classes • Examples • SSS’s • Examples • The other magnets (DS/MS/IR) • Examples • Issues • Conclusions and perspective

  3. Mission statement • If all magnets performed to (beam) specifications, we could install any magnet anywhere • In reality, we are faced with magnets performing worse, as, or better than (production) specified, available as produced and requested as from installation schedule • Although a global sorting is out of the question, delays in the installation have provided an appropriate stock of magnets (e.g. in excess of 400 MB’s) • Mission: • Find suitable slots for the available magnets that perform better than specified, as specified or out-of-tolerance • Preserve and (if possible) optimize the machine performance • Include provisions to face day-to-day requirements (faults during processing the magnets) • Follow the planned installation schedule with a suitable flow of allocated magnets

  4. 580 MB’s have been assigned to a slot in the tunnel (nearly 1/2 of the LHC) A stock of ≈ 250 magnets is available for macro- and local-sorting Working mode was drastically modified at the end of 2004 to semi-automatic assignment by batches (see later) to match the demands of transport and installation teams Slot allocation for MB’s Semi-automatic assignment started as proposed by S. Fartoukh

  5. Based on proposals from S. Fartoukh and E. Todesco Macro-sorting for MB’s • Pre-select batches of 1 sector (154 MB’s + some 10…20 spares) among the available stock(1) that have: • The appropriate diode type (R/L) • A 50/50 split between corrector packages (A/B) • The same inner cable (01B and 01E show slight differences in b1 at injection and initial ramp) • Minimum b1 and b3 random (see next slides) • An appropriate split among golden/silver/mid-cell geometry (see next slides) • Random mixing of • Manufacturer (Alstom/Ansaldo/BNN) • Outer cable type (02B/02C/02D/02E/02G/02K) NOTE: (1) CM and CR magnets. Magnets with delivery/completion date within few weeks of allocation are also considered for pre-selection

  6. Courtesy of E. Todesco Skimming/sifting the FQ - 1/2 • Production b3 1.9 units (vs. 1.4 units target) Initial production with non-nominal shims Change of cross section Negative trend of b3 for Ansaldo magnets and Alstom magnets with non-nominal shims Xs1 Xs2 Xs3

  7. Data analysis provided by P. Hagen and E. Todesco Skimming/sifting the FQ - 2/2 • Optimized choice can be used to select batches with b3 1.0 … 1.6 units Initial production with non-nominal shims and change of cross section Inner cable 01E Mixing of cross-section 2 and 3

  8. In one sector: not more than 46 (23+23) MC at least 10 (5+5) G Preferable (to allow sorting): At least 20 (10+10) G Not more than 20 (10+10) MC Based on a proposal from S. Fartoukh and J.B. Jeanneret Geometry classes - 1/3 mid-cell mid-cell Beam size silver silver silver silver

  9. Geometry classes - 2/3 • Morenon-silver magnets than allowed • A bit less golden magnets than desired Distribution of classes in allocated sectors Geometry of as-built MB’s

  10. Classes devised and defined by S. Fartoukh, J.B. Jeanneret and the WGA Geometry classes - 3/3 Golden-right Silver-left We can take advantage of the change of beam waist in the cell ! Silver-right Golden-left OK !

  11. The case of MB1148: Assigned to DS slot (geometry-critical) LBBLQ.8L1 based on anticipated geometry Unique type of interconnect (slot swapping not feasible) Central foot blocked at cryostating (WP02), producing mid-cell geometry Flanges out of tolerance (interconnect issue) Foot at the limit of the adjustment range Solution: installation shift x = 0.7 mm Courtesy of J.B. Jeanneret Example: MB geometry r-parameter of MB1148 as built V1 V2 r-parameter of MB1148 with installation shift V1 V2

  12. Algorithm devised by S. Fartoukh, discussed at FQWG Magnetic sorting • Local sorting on TF, b3, a2 to: • Insure that the CO can be corrected with < 30 % of the corrector strength • Minimize the driving terms of 3rd order resonance • Control the driving terms of of coupling resonance and vertical dispersion • Method: • No more than 3 MB’s with |b1| > 10 units in a raw • Form self-compensating sequences of MB’s to absorb |b1| > 15 units • Flip-flop pairing magnets with b3 above/below the <b3> • Pairing at  magnets with large or small b3 • Flip-flop pairing at 2 magnets with a2 above/below the <a2> • Pairing at /2 magnets with a2 above/below the <a2>

  13. Courtesy of S. Fartoukh Example: b1 local-sorting b1 distribution in sector 7-8 V1, MCBH strength at 7 TeV and residual CO error Gain: MCBH budget necessary for b1 correction limited to +/- 15 % of the available strength XS2 and XS3 magnets XS1 BNN magnets

  14. Effect of flip-flop pairing Effect of -pairing Courtesy of S. Fartoukh Example: b3 local-sorting b3 distribution in sector 7-8 3rd order resonance driving terms -paired flip-flop paired Gain: effective random b3 and driving terms reduced by a factor 3 XS3 magnets XS1 BNN magnets

  15. SSS come in many different types, with reduced sorting possibility Batch selection and qualification is performed in advance to cold test Pairing at /2 magnets with b2 above/below the <b2> (or pairing at 3/2, or flip-flop at , 2, issue with D-beating) 110/362 SSS (nearly 1/3 of the main ring) allocated to date Courtesy of M. Modena SSS allocation

  16. g r Specifications devised and defined by J.B. Jeanneret and WGA SSS geometry • The available aperture is tighter in the MQ’s, with no difference among cells • Specification based on D(H) quadrupole SSS58 • The present situation requires care (see next slide) to avoid aperture loss at the level of 0.5 to 1 mm SSS58

  17. The case of SSS95: Assigned to slot Q25R8 BPM support out-of-tolerance by 0.25 mm (cannot be corrected) Field angle 1.6 mrad (i.e. a2 = 32 units) Solution Installation shift and roll z=-0.1 mm, =-0.9 mrad Negligible aperture loss (of the order of 50 m, not critical because the quadrupole is F) Courtesy of E. Wildner, Y. Papaphilippou Example: SSS geometry r-parameter of SSS95 as built V1 V2 r-parameter of SSS95 with installation shift and roll V1 V2

  18. Courtesy of Y. Papaphilippou Example: SSS b2 sorting Total -beating (2 planes, 2 apertures) b2 distribution in sector 7-8 as from warm measurements Collars with permeability out of specification have large apparent deviation from the production average Gain: total beta-beating kept well within (factor 2 to 3) the allocated budget

  19. About 200 magnets: DS/MS (Q4…Q11) and IR (Q1…Q3, D1…D4) Correction dipoles for IP8,IP2 Discussed one-by-one, based on the specific requirements of the proposed slot (e.g. SSS607 in Q5L8) Allocated 6/114 DS/MS quadrupoles (< 10 %) 4/4 cold D1 6/8 D2 (the remaining 2 are preallocated) 5/24 IR quadrupoles (Q1/Q2 of IR8 R+L and Q3 or IR8 L) 3/6 warm compensation dipoles (IP8 spectrometer) In addition MQW pre-sorted based on b2 and geometry Maximum operating Current: 3453 A SSS607 training curve The other magnets

  20. The case of D1 at right of IP8 (D1L105) Pre-assignment based on field quality and geometry inferred from measurements taken on the cold mass skin Large deviations from straightness found in the cold bore x=1.7 mm, z=2.7 mm Critical n1 = 5.7  at collision vs. 7  target (with *=1 m) Solution: Installation shift x=-0.6 mm Marginal n1 = 6.3  at collision (with*=1 m, but this is an extreme case not used) Courtesy of M. Giovannozzi Example: D1 geometry D1L105 horizontal geometry D1L105 vertical geometry

  21. Replacement of magnets at installation Risk: we may lose the advantages of sorting MB batch selection, cold test planning and fiducialisation Risk: reduced flexibility as the production ends and the “sorting buffer” is depleted SSS installation vs. production Work: meeting the installation needs requires swift action (days) Quads in the DS and MS Work: documentation, automation, organization, as for MB’s and SSS’s IR magnets, most critical elements in the machine at collision Work: qualify cold D3/D4, Q1/Q2/Q3 Warm magnets Work: document, qualify, sort and assign to slot Assist the coordination work through anticipation Cold test planning Pre-assignment of MQ’s in the SSS Quench level in MQTL correctors Issues

  22. Results and perspective - 1/2 • So far we met our goals, and, when possible, we did better… • Maintaining the magnetic properties under control (using sorting and compensation on field quality) • Preserving the mechanical aperture (using sorting on geometric classes and installation shifts/rolls) • Negligible aperture loss in MQ’s, 0.1 mm (D) to 0.2 mm (F) • MB’s in the shadow of MQ’s • Optimizing the installation sequence to gain margin (limiting the corrector strength, resonance driving terms)

  23. Results and perspective - 2/2 • … but we are only half way (at most) • IR, MS and DS are in front of us (and there is work to be done to specify aperture targets and qualify magnets) • Changes of transport/installation scenarios and needs result in pressure on magnet delivery, we are in the middle of this process. The situation will escalate during 2006

  24. Acknowledgements ABP coordinators experts

More Related