1 / 28

Squeeze optics and power converter settings

Squeeze optics and power converter settings. Questions addressed: Can we ramp at constant optics and crossing scheme? Behaviour of optical parameters during squeeze of IR1 and/or IR5 Number of matched optics during squeeze Status of squeeze optics for IR2 and 8.

jania
Download Presentation

Squeeze optics and power converter settings

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. Squeeze optics and power converter settings • Questions addressed: • Can we ramp at constant optics and crossing scheme? • Behaviour of optical parameters during squeeze of IR1 and/or IR5 • Number of matched optics during squeeze • Status of squeeze optics for IR2 and 8 S. Fartoukh, M. Giovannozzi, J. Jowett, Y. Papaphilippou LHCCWG - November 29th 2006

  2. Introduction • The material concerning the squeeze for IR1 and 5 can be found at: • S. Fartoukh -> 23 LTC meeting, 31/03/04. • The material concerning the crossing scheme for IR1 and 5 during the squeeze can be found at: • S. Fartoukh -> LOC meeting, 11/10/05. • All the optics files are stored in the official database under V6.5 LHCCWG - November 29th 2006

  3. Can we ramp at constant optics and crossing scheme? - I • IR1 and 5: • Optics: injection optics can be ramped up to 7 TeV • Crossing scheme: • for beta* = 11 m, a = 200 mrad, par. sep. = 2 mm, MCBYs at Q4 (mainly for par. Sep.) are at 107% of nominal at 7 TeV -> the injection crossing scheme can be ramped (tight, but feasible). • For beta* = 17 m , a = 160 mrad, par. sep. = 2.5 mm, the same correctors are at 132% of nominal at 7 TeV -> the injection crossing scheme has to be changed at about 5 TeV. LHCCWG - November 29th 2006

  4. Can we ramp at constant optics and crossing scheme? - II • IR2 and 8: • Optics: injection optics can be ramped up to 7TeV. Important point: strength of triplets is 220 T/m instead of 205 T/m (due to the injection contraints of phase advance between septum and kicker)! • Crossing scheme: • IR2: the MCBY correctors in Q4 are limited in strength. In principle the injection crossing scheme cannot be ramped up to 7TeV. This issue should be studied in more details to assess whether alternative solution is possible… • IR8: no strength limitation is present, even though the strengh requirements for MCBYs at Q4 are tight (due to par. sep.). Injection crossing scheme can be ramped up to 7TeV. LHCCWG - November 29th 2006

  5. Behaviour of optical parameters during squeeze of IR1 and/or IR5- I • Status of squeeze optics: • 12 matched optics for various beta* are available. • Solutions provide smooth variation of the quadrupole gradients during squeeze. • A crossing scheme is implemented for each of the matched optics. • Criteria imposed on crossing scheme during squeeze: • Parallel separation kept constant • Scaling of the X-angles: • Scaling law for the IP shift: S. Fartoukh LOC meeting, 11/10/2005 LHCCWG - November 29th 2006

  6. S. Fartoukh, 23 LTC meeting Squeeze (3/4) Quadrupole gradients [T/m] in the Dispersion Suppressor (Q7-Q10) as a function of b*: beam1 (left) beam2 (right)  Rather smooth except for 1 m <b* < 2 m LHCCWG - November 29th 2006

  7. S. Fartoukh, 23 LTC meeting Squeeze (4/4) Quadrupole gradient [T/m] in the trim quadrupoles (QTL11,-QT12,QT13) as a function of b*: beam1 (left) beam2 (right) • Smooth/monotonous for beam1 but more “erratic’’ for beam2, with unavoidable zero-crossing for both beams (matching procedure could be optimised if needed) LHCCWG - November 29th 2006

  8. Behaviour of optical parameters during squeeze of IR1 and/or IR5- III S. Fartoukh LOC meeting, 11/10/2005 LHCCWG - November 29th 2006

  9. Behaviour of optical parameters during squeeze of IR1 and/or IR5- IV • Simulation conditions: • Plain V6.5 layout with nominal optics. • No errors (alignment or magnetic) included. • The 12 matched optics are used (collision tunes – 0.31/0.32, and chromaticities set to 2 with SF/SD circuits). • In between two matched optics the gradients are obtained by linear interpolation. • For intermediate optics relevant beam parameters are evaluated. LHCCWG - November 29th 2006

  10. Behaviour of optical parameters during squeeze of IR1 - I LHCCWG - November 29th 2006

  11. Behaviour of optical parameters during squeeze of IR1 - II LHCCWG - November 29th 2006

  12. Behaviour of optical parameters during squeeze of IR1 - III Critical region for Beam 2: smoothing should improve it Beam 2 seems to be more critical than Beam 1! However, no problem down to beta* = 2m. LHCCWG - November 29th 2006

  13. Behaviour of optical parameters during squeeze of IR1 - IV Critical region for Beam 2: smoothing should improve it Beam 2 seems to be more critical than Beam 1! However, no problem down to beta* = 2m. LHCCWG - November 29th 2006

  14. Behaviour of optical parameters during squeeze of IR1 - V Computed outside IR1/5 LHCCWG - November 29th 2006

  15. Behaviour of optical parameters during squeeze of IR1 - VI Computed outside IR1/5 LHCCWG - November 29th 2006

  16. Behaviour of optical parameters during squeeze of IR1 - VII Critical region for Beam 2: smoothing should improve it Computed outside IR1/5 LHCCWG - November 29th 2006

  17. Behaviour of optical parameters during squeeze of IR1 - VIII Critical region for Beam 2: smoothing should improve it Computed outside IR1/5 LHCCWG - November 29th 2006

  18. Behaviour of optical parameters during squeeze of IR1 - IX No impact of the squeeze on the beam parameters at IP. 7TeV crossing parameters. Matching with injection crossing to be discussed. LHCCWG - November 29th 2006

  19. Number of matched optics during squeeze- I • Two test cases considered: • Removal of two matched optics (beta* = 4 m and 2.5 m). • Beta* = 4 m: whenever removed the optical parameters remain bounded, e.g., tune variation below 1E-3. • Beta* = 2.5 m: whenever removed the optical parameters grow, e.g., tune variation above 4E-3. • Academic case: remove successive points below 11 m to determine behaviour of optical parameters. LHCCWG - November 29th 2006

  20. Number of matched optics during squeeze- II LHCCWG - November 29th 2006

  21. Number of matched optics during squeeze- III LHCCWG - November 29th 2006

  22. Number of matched optics during squeeze- IV LHCCWG - November 29th 2006

  23. Behaviour of optical parameters during squeeze of IR5 • Whenever IR5 is squeezed the results are very much the same as for IR1 (taking into account the exchange of the crossing plane): no particular new issue observed. LHCCWG - November 29th 2006

  24. Behaviour of optical parameters during combined squeeze of IR1 and 5 - I • Larger variations of the optical parameters are observed. In particular: • Horizontal and vertical planes have equal behaviour for closed orbit leakage < 0.1 s. • Beam 1: • Factor 2 larger tune variations -> DQ ~ 3E-3 • Chromaticities almost unaffected -> DQ’ ~ 0.15 • Factor 1.5 in beta-beating -> Db/b~ 1.5% • Orbit leakage almost unaffected < 0.1 s • Beam 2 (similar values as ofBeam 1, except for 1 m <beta* < 2 m): • Factor 2 larger tune variations -> DQ ~ 6E-3 • Chromaticities strongly affected -> DQ’ ~ 2 • Factor 1.5 in beta-beating -> Db/b~ 10-15% • Orbit leakage almost unaffected < 0.1 s LHCCWG - November 29th 2006

  25. Behaviour of optical parameters during combined squeeze of IR1 and 5 - II Critical region for Beam 2: smoothing should improve it LHCCWG - November 29th 2006

  26. Behaviour of optical parameters during combined squeeze of IR1 and 5 - III Critical region for Beam 2: smoothing should improve it LHCCWG - November 29th 2006

  27. Status of squeeze optics for IR2 and 8 • As far as the other insertions are concerned: • IR8: • it is foreseen to be squeezed down to beta* = 2 m (1 m is excluded due to aperture issues). • Optics files present, but not optimized, yet (quadrupoles variation not smooth enough). Once the optical solutions will be in final form, the approach presented should be repeated. The crossing scheme needs also to be implemented during the squeeze. • IR2: • it is foreseen to be un-squeezed for protons and squeezed down to beta* = 0.5 m for ions. • Optics files for the un-squeeze are still missing, while those for the ions are available. In both cases the crossing scheme needs to be computed. • IR2 and 8: transition from beta* = 10 m and MQX strength from 220 T/m to 205 T/m. LHCCWG - November 29th 2006

  28. Summary and outlook • MADX tool developed to qualify the squeeze. • Ramping with constant optics (injection) up to 7TeV is feasible (for IR2 and 8 it will depend on performance of triplet quadrupoles). • Ramping with constant crossing scheme (injection) up to 7TeV is problematic for IR2 (to be re-computed) and thigh, but feasible for IR1, 5, and 8. • Strength issues will not impose the choice of when to change optics/crossing scheme. • Squeeze with one insertion at a time (IR1 or 5) is not an issue in terms of optical parameters (and for a perfect machine). • Impact of errors to be assessed. • Behaviour of Beam 2 to be analyzed in details (possibly fixed by smoothing transition between beta* 1 m and 2 m). • Squeeze with both insertions at a time (IR1 and 5) is feasible, provided situation of Beam 2 is fixed. • Optics squeeze of other insertions (IR2 and 8) to be computed/finalized. Their contribution should be assessed. • Transition from injection to collision crossing scheme to be studied. LHCCWG - November 29th 2006

More Related