Critical beam losses during Commissioning
& Initial Operation
Guillaume Robert-Demolaize
(CERN and Univ. Joseph Fourier, Grenoble)
with R. Assmann, S. Redaelli, C. Bracco & T. Weiler;
thanks to B. Dehning, B, Holzer & L. Ponce
GRD, Chamonix XV 2006 Critical Beam Losses during Commissioning and Initial Operation 2
OUTLINE
Introduction
Loss distribution from betatron cleaning
Minimum workable BLM system for collimation studies
Conclusion – Future studies
GRD, Chamonix XV 2006 Critical Beam Losses during Commissioning and Initial Operation 3
Introduction
Purpose of the LHC Collimation system: provide cleaning efficiency and protection, using collimators and absorbers
=> ~ 40 elements per ring~ 40 elements per ring are being implemented in the machine (Phase 1 of the system)
About 3700 Beam Loss Monitors (BLMs) can be counted around the two rings of the machine
=> do we need all BLM information to understand the cleaning => do we need all BLM information to understand the cleaning performance and losses from the “leaking halo” ?performance and losses from the “leaking halo” ?
GRD, Chamonix XV 2006 Critical Beam Losses during Commissioning and Initial Operation 4
Base principles of the LHC collimation system
Collimators intercept beam halos (first, secondary, …) with some leakage which gets lost around the ring: the cleaning inefficiency of the system is then defined as:
The leakage lost over a given length of the machine (10 cm in our studies) is then counted as local cleaning inefficiency (unit = m-1).
Goal of this presentation is to show that it is sufficient to usesufficient to use only a only a limited number of BLMs for commissioning the collimation systemlimited number of BLMs for commissioning the collimation system.
systemtheby )cleaned"(" absorbed protons of #
systemcleaning the escaping protons of #
~
GRD, Chamonix XV 2006 Critical Beam Losses during Commissioning and Initial Operation 5
Critical BLMs for collimation
There are two types of critical BLMs for the collimation system:
-- BLMs at the collimators: needed from early on for the set-up of the collimators (experiments in SPS performed successfully in Fall 2004 for the first time),
-- BLMs at loss locations of “leakage halo”: the halo exiting IR3/IR7 is lost in characteristic locations and not spread everywhere around the ring (implying all BLMs should be used)
=> critical loss locations characterize the efficiency of our system: can => critical loss locations characterize the efficiency of our system: can we identify those critical locations (= BLMs) ??we identify those critical locations (= BLMs) ??
GRD, Chamonix XV 2006 Critical Beam Losses during Commissioning and Initial Operation 6
How to address this question
Performing full simulations with ALL movable LHC Collimation System equipments: 41 collimators/absorbers per ring for Phase 1.
Only betatron cleaning is considered in the following for on-momentum beam halo
Check leakage halo losses in cold elements of the machine
Notes: * results presented for Beam 1 only (Beam 2 tracking in preparation) * heavy computing effort in resources and time (CPU limited) * local energy deposition: FLUKA takes our data as input * losses at collimators: induced showers can propagate downstream
GRD, Chamonix XV 2006 Critical Beam Losses during Commissioning and Initial Operation 7
CPU usage
2 students - 2 fellows
Tracking on 64+ CPUs
← limit of Collimation allocated CPUs
← granted by share with experiments
GRD, Chamonix XV 2006 Critical Beam Losses during Commissioning and Initial Operation 8
OUTLINE
Introduction
Loss distribution from betatron cleaning
Minimum workable BLM system for collimation studies
Conclusion – Future studies
GRD, Chamonix XV 2006 Critical Beam Losses during Commissioning and Initial Operation 9
Parameters for obtaining loss maps
Data done for the two types of tracked halo (horizontal and vertical) and the two optics defined as reference cases:
-- injection optics: 450 GeV, * = 17 m at all IPs,
-- collision optics: 7 TeV, * = 0.55 m at IP1 & IP5 (else 10 m).
Intermediate * values can be studied if necessary (in case of big losses in experimental insertions).
Assumed quench limit values: 10-3 m-1 (injection) 2 x 10-5 m-1 (collision)
Results presented in the following slides focus on the horizontal halo only.
GRD, Chamonix XV 2006 Critical Beam Losses during Commissioning and Initial Operation 10
Collimators settings – Injection (1/2)
GRD, Chamonix XV 2006 Critical Beam Losses during Commissioning and Initial Operation 11
Collimators settings – Injection (2/2)
GRD, Chamonix XV 2006 Critical Beam Losses during Commissioning and Initial Operation 12
Collimators settings – Top energy (1/2)
GRD, Chamonix XV 2006 Critical Beam Losses during Commissioning and Initial Operation 13
Collimators settings – Top energy (2/2)
GRD, Chamonix XV 2006 Critical Beam Losses during Commissioning and Initial Operation 14
Error scenarios
In the following we consider free orbit oscillations, always at the worst phase (found in simulation scan), following 2 scenarios:
Static case:
-- collimators are always re-centered around the perturbed orbit
-- the error amplitude can reach the estimated aperture tolerances of 4 mm (injection optics) / 3 mm (collision optics)
Dynamic case:
-- collimators are still centered on the nominal closed orbit
-- peak amplitude of error is ~ 1.5
GRD, Chamonix XV 2006 Critical Beam Losses during Commissioning and Initial Operation 15
Loss map – 450 GeVIdeal case
=> Ideal case: below the quench limit (factor 5); not true during start-up though
▬► halo
↕ x 5
GRD, Chamonix XV 2006 Critical Beam Losses during Commissioning and Initial Operation 16
Sample perturbed orbit
▬► halo
↑│││ ± 4 mm││↓
GRD, Chamonix XV 2006 Critical Beam Losses during Commissioning and Initial Operation 17
Loss map – 450 GeV Perturbed orbit – worst phase, 4 mm amplitude
=> Loss of a factor 2 in efficiency at worst locations !!!
▬► halo
↕ x 2.5
GRD, Chamonix XV 2006 Critical Beam Losses during Commissioning and Initial Operation 18
Going downstream from IR7
▼▼ ▼ ▼ ▼ ▼ ▼
=> Same loss locations !!! Modulation of the peaks: a way to measure orbit ???
▼
▼
▼
▼▼
▼
▼▼
high dispersion
↓high dispersion + high ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓
Ideal case
4 mm orbit
▼ = critical BLM
GRD, Chamonix XV 2006 Critical Beam Losses during Commissioning and Initial Operation 19
Effect of optic (dispersion)
=> Losses due to first high dispersion location !!!
Characteristic loss locations can be understood from halo properties and optics.
↑ peak loss location
GRD, Chamonix XV 2006 Critical Beam Losses during Commissioning and Initial Operation 20
Why off-momentum losses for on-momentum primary halo ?
Collimators in IR7 intercept off-axis particles => induced proton-collimator material interaction follows several processes.
Single-diffracting scatteringSingle-diffracting scattering: generates off-momentum halo=> always lost at one of the first high dispersion points: critical locations for limiting losses are therefore well defined (as seen in the IR7 +Arc 7-8 case)
Sets fundamental limitation of the LHC betatron cleaning insertion: single-diffracting scattering can never be avoided !!!
GRD, Chamonix XV 2006 Critical Beam Losses during Commissioning and Initial Operation 21
IR8 + Arc 8-1
▼
▼
▼
▼
Ideal case
4 mm orbit
GRD, Chamonix XV 2006 Critical Beam Losses during Commissioning and Initial Operation 22
Effect of optic (beta)
=> Losses due to high betatron location !!!
← peak loss location
GRD, Chamonix XV 2006 Critical Beam Losses during Commissioning and Initial Operation 23
IR1
Ideal case
4 mm orbit
GRD, Chamonix XV 2006 Critical Beam Losses during Commissioning and Initial Operation 24
IR2
Losses here are due to scattering from TDI
TDI.4L2
TCLIA.4R2
Ideal case
4 mm orbit
GRD, Chamonix XV 2006 Critical Beam Losses during Commissioning and Initial Operation 25
IR3
▼
▼
Remember: only betatron cleaning
Ideal case
4 mm orbit
GRD, Chamonix XV 2006 Critical Beam Losses during Commissioning and Initial Operation 26
IR4
Ideal case
4 mm orbit
GRD, Chamonix XV 2006 Critical Beam Losses during Commissioning and Initial Operation 27
IR5
Ideal case
4 mm orbit
GRD, Chamonix XV 2006 Critical Beam Losses during Commissioning and Initial Operation 28
IR6
▼
Losses at the TCDQ equipment: → problem of local showers downstream of it under study
Ideal case
4 mm orbit▼
=> We made one turn after IR7: 13 critical BLMs identified13 critical BLMs identified at injection (in addition to the ones foreseen at the locations of collimators).
GRD, Chamonix XV 2006 Critical Beam Losses during Commissioning and Initial Operation 29
Going further in error amplitude
│ │ ← specified orbit │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
+ 80 %
+ 130 %
GRD, Chamonix XV 2006 Critical Beam Losses during Commissioning and Initial Operation 30
7 Tev Study
IR2, IR5 & IR8: nominal crossing schemes IR1: where orbit perturbation is applied
halo▬►
Static orbit: ± 4 mm in the arcs, ± 3 mm in the insertions (many thanks to W. Herr !!!) .
GRD, Chamonix XV 2006 Critical Beam Losses during Commissioning and Initial Operation 31
Going downstream from IR7
▼▼
▼
▼▼
▼▼ ▼▼
▼
▼
▼Ideal case
With orbit error
↓ high dispersion
high dispersion + high ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓
=> From below quench limit to about twice above; additional BLMs show up, but most of them are at the same locations than injection case.
GRD, Chamonix XV 2006 Critical Beam Losses during Commissioning and Initial Operation 32
IR8 + Arc 8-1
← TCTs: generate a new quartiary halo => critical BLMs to be located here as well
▼
▼ ▼ ▼
▼▼
Ideal case
With orbit error
GRD, Chamonix XV 2006 Critical Beam Losses during Commissioning and Initial Operation 33
IR1
Ideal case
With orbit error
← TCTs
GRD, Chamonix XV 2006 Critical Beam Losses during Commissioning and Initial Operation 34
IR2
← TCTs
Ideal case
With orbit error
GRD, Chamonix XV 2006 Critical Beam Losses during Commissioning and Initial Operation 35
IR3
Remember: only betatron study so far
Ideal case
With orbit error
GRD, Chamonix XV 2006 Critical Beam Losses during Commissioning and Initial Operation 36
IR4
Ideal case
With orbit error
GRD, Chamonix XV 2006 Critical Beam Losses during Commissioning and Initial Operation 37
IR5
Ideal case
With orbit error
← TCTs
GRD, Chamonix XV 2006 Critical Beam Losses during Commissioning and Initial Operation 38
IR6
Losses at the TCDQ equipment: → problem of local showers downstream of it under study
Ideal case
With orbit error
=> After one complete turn: 18 critical locations (in addition to collimator ones and at the triplets)
GRD, Chamonix XV 2006 Critical Beam Losses during Commissioning and Initial Operation 39
Dynamic scenario - Process
Dynamic studies: collimators are not re-centered around the perturbed orbit.
Purpose of this scenario: check the sensitivity of the system to fast orbit changes
=> how does the system behave if a secondary collimator gets closer to become a primary (back to a single-stage system) ? What is the effect on the cleaning efficiency ?
In the following, only the collision optics case is presented (results for injection optics still being analyzed).
GRD, Chamonix XV 2006 Critical Beam Losses during Commissioning and Initial Operation 40
Effect on the cleaning system - LatticeTCP.C6L7 TCSG.B4L7 TCSG.6R7
↓ zero orbit change
↑ critical secondary
GRD, Chamonix XV 2006 Critical Beam Losses during Commissioning and Initial Operation 41
Loss Map for a 0.95 offset (only IR7 elements)
=> Loss of a factor 4 in local cleaning efficiency in IR7 !!!
same critical locations !!!↓
GRD, Chamonix XV 2006 Critical Beam Losses during Commissioning and Initial Operation 42
OUTLINE
Introduction
Loss distribution from betatron cleaning
Minimum workable BLM system for collimation studies
Conclusion – Future studies
GRD, Chamonix XV 2006 Critical Beam Losses during Commissioning and Initial Operation 43
Requirements for commissioning
For commissioning of the LHC and its collimation system, one needs to be sure to operate in safe conditions
=> with the results presented here, we can already point out critical locations !!
The determined positions and peak values of losses can then be used to define a minimum workable LHC BLM system for collimation studies.
GRD, Chamonix XV 2006 Critical Beam Losses during Commissioning and Initial Operation 44
Summary table for injection
black: nominal & perturbed case
red: only in nominal case
+ collimator locations
+ critical locations for IR3
=> 13 critical locations in total
GRD, Chamonix XV 2006 Critical Beam Losses during Commissioning and Initial Operation 45
Summary table for collision
black: nominal & perturbed case
red: only in nominal case
blue: only in perturbed case
+ collimator locations
+ triplets
+ critical locations for IR3
=> 18 critical locations in total, 6 of which being identical as in identical as in the injection casethe injection case !!
GRD, Chamonix XV 2006 Critical Beam Losses during Commissioning and Initial Operation 46
Critical loss locations
GRD, Chamonix XV 2006 Critical Beam Losses during Commissioning and Initial Operation 47
Longitudinal distribution of beam losses – detailed studies for BLM positioning
Dipole: all along the magnet
Quadrupole: up to the middle of the magnet
GRD, Chamonix XV 2006 Critical Beam Losses during Commissioning and Initial Operation 48
Remarks
Early scenario checked (as seen in R. Assmann’s previous talk) as well: identical loss locations
Cases studies here refer to closed orbit perturbation spread all along the lattice: do not take into account possible local bumps in orbit !!!=> expect certainly some few additional high loss locationsexpect certainly some few additional high loss locations.
injection optics: many regions, not that criticalinjection optics: many regions, not that critical
collision optics: few regions, more criticalcollision optics: few regions, more critical
GRD, Chamonix XV 2006 Critical Beam Losses during Commissioning and Initial Operation 49
OUTLINE
Introduction
Loss distribution from betatron cleaning
Minimum workable BLM system for collimation studies
Conclusion – Future studies
GRD, Chamonix XV 2006 Critical Beam Losses during Commissioning and Initial Operation 50
Conclusion
The tools we developed allow us to study where the most critical regions of the machine are expected:
-- for both mode of operation of the LHC (injection & collision), with still other optics possible,
-- for any given scenario of beam losses, to check how flexible the system can be depending on the mode of operations.
In close collaboration with the BLM team, detection and detection and monitoring of these critical regions shall be achieved to allow monitoring of these critical regions shall be achieved to allow efficient commissioning of the LHC Collimation Systemefficient commissioning of the LHC Collimation System.
GRD, Chamonix XV 2006 Critical Beam Losses during Commissioning and Initial Operation 51
Conclusion
SC ring losses: 25 per ring + 8 triplet locations
Collimator losses: 41 collimator locations at Phase 1
Out of these 74 locations, only 3 of them are not yet foreseen as BLM locations: MB9, MB11 and MB13 downstream of IP7
=> would it be sufficient to rely on the information delivered by => would it be sufficient to rely on the information delivered by the BLM located at the closest quadrupole magnets ?the BLM located at the closest quadrupole magnets ?
Results will be used to prepare commissioning tools: number of channels displayed, etc…
GRD, Chamonix XV 2006 Critical Beam Losses during Commissioning and Initial Operation 52
Future works
Static case at collision optics: in this talk, we set IR1 as the disturbed insertion => estimation of losses for other IRs ??
Dynamic studies: check of the influence on efficiency at injection still ongoing; accident cases can de derived from this scenario (e.g. a secondary IR7 collimator becoming a primary)
Other error models are foreseen to be studied, mainly beta-beating tolerances, inclusion of the map of non-linearities of the LHC magnets, more complete imperfection models.
GRD, Chamonix XV 2006 Critical Beam Losses during Commissioning and Initial Operation 53
GRD, Chamonix XV 2006 Critical Beam Losses during Commissioning and Initial Operation 54
BACKUP SLIDES
GRD, Chamonix XV 2006 Critical Beam Losses during Commissioning and Initial Operation 55
Critical BLMs for collimation
S. Redaelli,Chamonix 2005
GRD, Chamonix XV 2006 Critical Beam Losses during Commissioning and Initial Operation 56
Parameters for obtaining loss maps
Quench limit values used in the following are derived from the values of the loss rates at the quench limit as given in the LHC Project Report 44:
(assuming simplified quench limits)
GRD, Chamonix XV 2006 Critical Beam Losses during Commissioning and Initial Operation 57
Cases studied so far
Various models are available; to compare with the Perfect Machine case, we started studying the effect of Closed Orbit variation, depending on:
-- the phase of the error with respect to the IR7 insertion,
-- the amplitude of this error,
-- the speed of this error: is the perturbation fast enough so that collimators become off-centered from the new closed orbit ?
=> 2 scenarios: static study and dynamic study
GRD, Chamonix XV 2006 Critical Beam Losses during Commissioning and Initial Operation 58
Beam Loss Tracking
A package of state-of-the-art 6D tracking tools has been set up in 2005, which includes:
-- scattering routines applied to all of the 43 equipments foreseen for Phase 1 of the Collimation System,
-- LHC aperture model with a 10 cm resolution level,
-- full 6D treatment of error models (closed orbit deviation, beta-beating, magnet non-linearities)
=> this talk will focus on the critical beam loss locations due to various closed orbit error scenarios
GRD, Chamonix XV 2006 Critical Beam Losses during Commissioning and Initial Operation 59
Static case – Injection Optics
Aim: scan all possible phases between [ -π ; + π ] and find the worst one, i.e. the one phase for which the highest local loss peak comes the closest to the design quench limit.
Once this phase is found, do a scan over the amplitude of the closed orbit deviation (peak value of the error always taken in the arc as reference).
GRD, Chamonix XV 2006 Critical Beam Losses during Commissioning and Initial Operation 60
Peak losses - local
GRD, Chamonix XV 2006 Critical Beam Losses during Commissioning and Initial Operation 61
First Step – Scan in Phase
GRD, Chamonix XV 2006 Critical Beam Losses during Commissioning and Initial Operation 62
List of “golden” BLMs - Injection
12 critical positions listed:
Q11 @ right of IR3
DFBA behind Q5 @ right of IR6
Q11, MB13, Q13, Q23, Q27, Q31 @ right of IR7
Q33, Q29, Q25 @ left of IR8
Q2 before D1 @ right of IR8
Q6 @ right of IR8
GRD, Chamonix XV 2006 Critical Beam Losses during Commissioning and Initial Operation 63
Loss map – 7 TevIdeal case
=> Ideal case: just below the quench limit downstream of IR7 !!!!
▬► halo
GRD, Chamonix XV 2006 Critical Beam Losses during Commissioning and Initial Operation 64
Worst phase – Static case, Collision optics
The static scenario for a closed orbit perturbation at collision optics is different than the previous study, the maximum tolerance in orbit distortion being:
-- ± 4 mm in the arcs
-- ± 3 mm in the insertion regions
In the collision scheme we consider, IR1 & IR5 are squeezed: in the following we will consider a maximum perturbation in the arcs and IR1 and an orbit corrected to the nominal schemes in all other IRs.
GRD, Chamonix XV 2006 Critical Beam Losses during Commissioning and Initial Operation 65
Loss map – 7 TeV Perturbed orbit – worst phase for IR1 scenario
=> Now a factor 2 over quench limit at worst locations !!!
▬► halo
GRD, Chamonix XV 2006 Critical Beam Losses during Commissioning and Initial Operation 66
Collision Optics – 7 TeV Perturbed orbit – phase with high IR3 losses
=> Getting closer to quench limit in IR3: Q6 (left) !!!
GRD, Chamonix XV 2006 Critical Beam Losses during Commissioning and Initial Operation 67
Effect of optic parameters
=> Losses due to first high dispersion location !!!
GRD, Chamonix XV 2006 Critical Beam Losses during Commissioning and Initial Operation 68
Effect of optic parameters
GRD, Chamonix XV 2006 Critical Beam Losses during Commissioning and Initial Operation 69
List of “golden” BLMs – 7 TeV
17 critical positions listed:
Q6 @ left of IR3
Q8, MB9, Q9, MB11, BS.11, Q11, Q13, Q19, Q21, Q27 @ right of IR7
Q33, Q25, Q17 @ left of IR8
Q16, Q30 @ right of IR8
Q22, Q14 @ left of IR1
GRD, Chamonix XV 2006 Critical Beam Losses during Commissioning and Initial Operation 70
Dynamic scenario – Considered cases
TCP.C6L7.B1 TCSG
↔
DX = 0.95 s
+6 s+7 s-6 s -7 s
GRD, Chamonix XV 2006 Critical Beam Losses during Commissioning and Initial Operation 71
Dynamic scenario – Considered cases
TCP.C6L7.B1 TCSG
↔
DX = 1.1 s
+6 s +7 s-6 s -7 s
=> In that case, the TCSG becomes a primary collimatorTCSG becomes a primary collimator !!!
GRD, Chamonix XV 2006 Critical Beam Losses during Commissioning and Initial Operation 72
Second step – Phase selection
GRD, Chamonix XV 2006 Critical Beam Losses during Commissioning and Initial Operation 73
Effect on the cleaning system – Cleaning Inefficiency for a 0.95 s offset
=> At 10 s, we loose a factor 2 in cleaning efficiencyfactor 2 in cleaning efficiency !!!
GRD, Chamonix XV 2006 Critical Beam Losses during Commissioning and Initial Operation 74
Critical loss locations
Injection optics:
-- the critical losses are distributed over the end of IR7, the Arc 7-8 and IR8,
-- the IR2 region should also be monitored: losses there are due to interaction of secondary halo particles with the TDI collimator, protecting the machine from Beam 1 injection errors,
-- the IR3 region (dedicated to momentum cleaning) should also be monitored: studies presented here only consider on-momentum particles, and loss spikes can already be noticed.
GRD, Chamonix XV 2006 Critical Beam Losses during Commissioning and Initial Operation 75
Critical loss locations
Collision optics:
-- static scenario: * critical losses are at the very beginning of the dispersion suppressor downstream of IR7,
* some other noticeable spikes are seen in arcs 7-8 and 8-1, but none in IR8,
* for some particular situation, we also noticed high losses at the Q6 of IR3: this location should as well be monitored
-- dynamic scenarios: this case shows how much the system relies on a good control of the orbit => for a 0.95 s offset at the worst location in IR7, the cleaning efficiency drops by a factor 2 (significant at collision optics).
