1 / 10

Asynchronous Beam Dump Studies C.Bracco, B.Goddard

Asynchronous Beam Dump Studies C.Bracco, B.Goddard. Worst-case for 1 bunch with TCDQ position OK. Initial distribution: one bunch of 32’000 particles centered at 7.5 mm on TCDQ.

faris
Download Presentation

Asynchronous Beam Dump Studies C.Bracco, B.Goddard

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. Asynchronous Beam Dump StudiesC.Bracco, B.Goddard

  2. Worst-case for 1 bunch with TCDQ position OK Initial distribution: one bunch of 32’000 particles centered at 7.5 mm on TCDQ Beam 2 tracked from TCDQ to TCTs in IP5, that is the most critical region for losses in case of asynchronous beam dump.

  3. Worst-case: particles absorbed at collimators All the particles reaching the TCTH and TCTV have been scattered by the TCSG or grazed by the TCDQ (< 1%) no primary protons 626 seeds for scattering routine  ~ 11E6 p+ TCDQ TCTH TCSG TCSG TCTH TCTV p+ Absorbed at: * TCTV TCTV p+ Absorbed at: * TCTH * TCSG * TCDQ Collimators set at the physical aperture (in mm) defined during beam based alignment

  4. Density of Particles at the TCTH Density [p/sigma] Density [p/sigma] x [sigma] y [sigma] Density [p/sigma] y [sigma] • All losses come from p+ scattered through TCSG which fill acceptance with scattered primaries • Total p+ on TCTH is 0.3% of single bunch (8% impacting TCSG in this simulation) or 3.3108 p+ • Peak p+ density is about 0.016% of single bunch (equivalent to 2.5106 p+ with nominal ex,y) • Consistent with expectations - full bunch on TCSG would be attenuated by 10, and have 180 emittance increase x [sigma]

  5. Loss Map for Beam 2, 3.5 TeV, 2m b* in IP5 From SixTrack simulations: Ds = 10 cm @ magnets Ds = 1 m @ collimators (jaw length) Totabs = 8’463’489 # particles lost in Ds Local cleaning inefficiency: h = Ds × Totabs Collimators Cold Magnets Warm Magnets 1 bunch case TCDQ +TCSG Beam2 120 TCTH+TCTV Statistical error = 1/√N  max = 0.03 Nominal bunch (1.1E11 p+): 3.3E8 p+ on TCT (3e-3 ratio) Only primary protons losses.

  6. 3.5 TeV, 2m b*, 2mm (=1σ)offset IR6 saturated IR7 15Gy/s TCTH.4R5.B2 0.6 Gy/s  2E7 p+ Leakage from TCDQ ~2E-2 from BLMs (but saturated). Measured ~4e9 p+ with abort gap monitor (AGM) at moment of dump Using abort gap population and, according to our assumptions, the leakage from TCDQ is ~2E-3 BSRA

  7. Possible worst-case scenarios... • During setup with beam at 3.5 TeV: • Single bunch hitting metal collimator • Requires asynchronous dump/kicker pretrigger, PLUS ‘unlucky’ timing, PLUS collimator at correct phase to be exposed • Any way for single bunch to hit triplet aperture?? • Seems unlikely (TCDQ/TCSG should protect TCT, and this is inside triplet) • Should check carefully through details of setup procedure and see what asynch dump would give at each stage • During normal operation: • Multiple bunches hitting metal collimator • Requires another ‘non standard’ error somewhere (orbit at TCDQ, or TCDQ/TCT position, ...) • Studied by T.Kramer in PhD thesis • Detailed results obtained for different TCDQ retractions (same as orbit error)

  8. Impacts on metal collimators from asynch dump 7 TeV prefire dump case with0.5 m * and all LHC errors.

  9. Work needed to give FLUKA input... • Define machine parameters for study (b*, optical errors, orbit, setup errors, ...) • Already some issues here – make many runs with many different machines, to find average and worst case, or take a typical case (but what is ‘typical’?) • Choose failure case to give more ‘realistic’ input for FLUKA • For setup, need to choose “worst” time in procedure to have asynch dump • Check with tracking the impact parameters and distribution • For operational scenarios, more difficult • Need some assumption on the “concurrent” failure at time of asynch dump – orbit, setup errors, ... • Not to forget the “multiple pre-trigger” cases which are still possible until 2013 • Also need not to forget the basic case with the transmission of particles through 1 stage cleaning • Should not have damage during “normal” asynch dump at 0.55 m b*

  10. Conclusions • Asynchronous beam dump simulations for a single bunch at 3.5 TeV (2m b* in point 5) have been performed with SixTrack for beam 2 – all movable elements at nominal positions • Simulations show that losses at the TCT come from particles scattered at the TCSG (less than 1% from particles grazing the TCDQ), no losses of primary protons are observed • Simulations allow to visualize the distribution of particles absorbed at the TCT: peak density is equivalent of 0.016% of full bunch with nominal emittance • An asynchronous beam dump, performed for the same case (3.5 TeV, 2m b* in point 5), and losses (from PM) have been analyzed. • Measurements agreed well with simulations • For worst-case situations, need to carefully choose conditions AND methodology • easier for setup scenarios • beam experience for the operational scenarios? • detailed input from both LBDS and COLL teams needed – then simple 1 turn tracking

More Related