1 / 32

Simulation studies of proton and heavy-ion cleaning with 2018 optics

Explore simulation results and comparisons with 2018 optics operation, focusing on proton and heavy-ion cleaning in collimation studies. Includes detailed analyses, measurements, and outlook.

vwalter
Download Presentation

Simulation studies of proton and heavy-ion cleaning with 2018 optics

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. Simulation studies of proton and heavy-ion cleaning with 2018 optics N. Fuster-Martínez, A. Abramov, R. Bruce, A. Mereghetti, D. Mirarchi, J. Molson, S. Redaelli On behalf of the LHC Collimation and OP team LHC Collimation WG meeting 3/1/2018

  2. Outline • 2018 proton run optics collimation cleaning studies • Introduction to the simulations • Simulation results and comparison with measurements • Summary and outlook • First 2018 ion run optics collimation cleaning simulation • Introduction to the simulations • First results • Summary and outlook

  3. Introduction to proton cleaning simulations 2018 • Motivation: • Reference loss maps of 2018 optics operation. • Contribute to the understanding of agreement of prediction tools with real data. Physics SixTrack simulation inputs LHC 2018 cycle: • Optics version: • …/opticsfile.24_ctpps2 (25 cm) • …/opticsfile.23_ctpps2 (27 cm) • …/opticsfile.22_ctpps2 (30 cm) • Beam: • 6.5 TeV • pencil beam at TCP (5-5.04 𝜎) Squeeze (b*= 0.3/10/0.4/1 m) Ramp&Squeeze (b*= 1/10/1/3 m) Xing Lev. XRP IN Coll. All IPs β* Lev. Inj.

  4. Collimator settings Collimator settings: Flat top and Physics optics 2018

  5. Simulation results B1H different β* β*= 25 cm 130 µrad sep=0 Small differences at the TCTs IP1/5/6 β*= 27 cm 130 µrad sep=0 β*= 30 cm 160 µrad sep=0 • Similar loss patter between differentβ*

  6. Simulation results B1H different β* IR7 β*= 25 cm 130 µrad sep=0 β*= 27 cm 130 µrad sep=0 β*=30 cm 160 µrad sep=0 • Same average inefficiency in all DS1/2/3.

  7. Losses at the TCTs summary B2 B1 β* change β* change • Qualitative good agreement of the trend as we decrease β*. • Measured levels of inefficiency on the TCTs higher by one order of magnitude or more than simulations. • Could be due to BLM response – CWG#206 2016 E. Skordis “TCT BLM response from tertiary halo at 6.5 TeV”.

  8. DS1 and DS2 cleaning inefficiency B2 B1 β* change β* change • No significant change of the inefficiency on the β* levelling as observed in measurements. • Level of inefficiency between measurements and simulation by a factor 4 to 10. • Higher measurements could be due to BLM response – CWG#206 2016 E. Skordis “TCT BLM response from tertiary halo at 6.5 TeV”.

  9. Simulation results and measurements B1H 25 cm β* Simulations Not observed in measurements Measurements TS1 2018 real! real! fake • Not observed cold spikes in measurements could be explain by orbit/misalignment of the TCP. • By comparison with previous simulation studies (R. Bruce, CWG 2017.10.09 B1H β*=55 cm) • Asymmetric TCP settings to complete the study for a better comparison with measurements.

  10. Simulation results and measurements B1H 25 cm β* Simulations Measurements TS1 2018

  11. Simulation results and measurements B1V 25 cm β* Simulations MeasurementsTS1 2018 real! real! real!

  12. Simulation results and measurements B2H 25 cm β* Simulations Measurements TS1 2018 real! real! real!

  13. Simulation results and measurements B2V 25 cm β* Simulations Measurements TS1 2018 real! real!

  14. Summary and outlook on proton simulations • Proton collimation cleaning simulations have been performed and compared with measurements for the 2018 β* levelling optics. • Differences between the three optics studied mainly at the TCTs in IP1/5 due to the tightening of the TCTs gaps in units of 𝜎 as β* is decreased. • The comparison of simulations with measurements shows a qualitative good overall agreement although some discrepancies are present. • OUTLOOK • Asymmetric TCP simulations could be performed for a better understanding of agreement between simulations and measurements.

  15. Introduction to ion cleaning simulations 2018 • Motivation: • The operation with heavy-ion beams at 6.37 Z TeV is more demanding for the collimation system. • In 2015 operation losses in the IR7 DS caused several dumps -> could limit the use of available intensity. • Crucial to perform cleaning simulations and validate the collimator settings for the 2018 ion run. hiSixtrack-FLUKA coupling (FLUKA PRO and SixTrack v5) (Thanks to FLUKA team and P. Hermes) • New 2018 ion optics (S. Fartoukh) -> essentially the nominal optics for the HL-LHC Pb-Pb • Optics simulated: Physics ->Optics file: /afs/cern.ch/eng/lhc/optics/runII/2018/ION/Opticsfile.21 • BFPP bumps in ATLAS and CMS off • Negative LHCb and ALICE polarity • Beam • 6.37xZ TeV, N=6x106208Pb+82 ions • Impact parameter at the TCP: 1 µm (max. ineff. in DS1/2 in the 2015 ion run simulations)

  16. Collimator settings Preliminary collimator settings • Smallest aperture expected in Q2R2 about 11𝜎 calculated with MADX (Tolerances: CERN-ACC-2014-0044) -> to be confirmed experimentally. • Changes whit respect to the proton collimator settings: • TCTs in IP1/2/5 • TCSP and TCDQ in IP6 (not ATS optics, no difference B1/B2)

  17. Simulation results: B1H Physics • Higher cold losses in DS1 and DS2. • Highest DS1 peak among beams and planes ~9.4x10-3. • Higher integrated losses inefficiency in DS2 and higher peak in DS1. • Higher losses at the TCTs among the IPs in IP1/2 ~ 10-3. • Similar loss pattern for B1V. DS1 DS2 DS3

  18. Simulation results: B2V Physics • Higher cold losses in DS1 and DS2 with maximum peak ~2.6 10-3 (a factor 4 lower than B1H). • Higher losses at the TCTs among the IPs in IP6 ~ 10-3. • Higher integrated losses inefficiency and higher peak in DS1. • Similar loss pattern for B2H. DS1 DS2 DS3

  19. Summary of inefficiencies in IR7 DS • Highest inefficiency peak in DS1 for B1H. • Highest integrated inefficiency in DS1 and DS2 for B1V.

  20. First comparison with 2015 ion run: B2H 2018 optics B2H • Some 2015 values for B2H: • Quench test: BLM MBB6L7 (2.2+/-0.4) x10-2 • EoS measured: BLM MQ9L7 (1.4+/-0.4) x10-2 • hiSixTrack-FLUKA: MBB9L7 (2.4+/-0.4) x10-3 • B2H cold cleaning inefficiency along the ring and in the DS1/2 (1.9x10-3) similar level as in the 2015 ion run, we are similar situation. P. Hermes P.h.D thesis

  21. B1H Physics: Asymmetric TCP • Study of possible strategies to reduce the cleaning inefficiency in the IR7 DS magnets. Dominated by first turn 206Pb +82 from TCP

  22. B1H Physics: Asymmetric TCP IR7 DS1 DS2 DS3

  23. Summary of inefficiencies in IR7 DS for asymmetric TCP • POSITIVE JAW ONLY: • Alleviates some high cold losses along the ring. • Highest impact in DS3 by about 70% -> however this is not the limiting location. • DS1 peak reduced by 5%. • DS1 integrated losses inefficiency by 40%. • In DS2 almost no impact. • Low impact observed in DS1 and DS2

  24. Summary and outlook • First collimation cleaning simulations has been performed for the new 2018 ion optics and a first proposal for the collimator settings have been made. • Higher cold losses along the ring observed in DS1 being B1H the worst case with an inefficiency in the order of ~1x10-2. Similar or lower levels as in the 2015 ion-run simulations. • Asymmetric simulations performed for B1H (one TCP jaw at a time) to investigate the possibility of improving the overall inefficiency. Some high spikes in the arcs in IR8/1/2 are alleviated if only one jaw is inserted but small impact is observed in the IR7 DS. • OUTLOOK • Detailed cold spikes and DS analysis for a better understanding of the origin of the losses and the asymmetric simulation observations. • ASD simulations to validate the TCTs settings.

  25. Back up …

  26. Simulation results: B1H separation bump ON/OFF Separation bumps ON 25 cm 130 urad Separation bumps OFF 25 cm 130 urad • No significant differences observed on the cold losses and at the collimators.

  27. Simulation results and measurements comparison R. Bruce, CWG 2017.10.09 “Previous studies on collimator settings for improved impedance” B1H β*=55 cm: simulations with only LEFT jaws showed a better cleaning and less cold losses Asymmetric TCP settings to complete the study for a better comparison with measurements -> orbit and/or TCP small misalignements could explain

  28. Simulation results B1V 25 cm β* Simulations Measurements TS1 2018

  29. Simulation results B2H 25 cm β* Simulations Measurements TS1 2018

  30. Simulation results B2V 25 cm β* Simulations Measurements TS1 2018

  31. B1V Physics • Higher cold losses in DS1 and DS2 with maximum peak ~7.3 10-3. • Integrated losses inefficiency and peak very similar in DS2 and DS1. • Higher losses at the TCTs among the IPs in IP1/2 ~ 10-3.

  32. B2H Physics • Higher cold losses in DS1 and DS2 with maximum peak ~1.8 10-3. • Higher losses at the TCTs among the IPs in IP6/2 ~ 10-3. • Higher integrated losses inefficiency in DS2 and higher peak in DS1.

More Related