Options for Possible Sector Test

Options for Possible Sector Test

Mike Lamont

LHC sector test 24-3-2008




Outline

Motivation Options

Space & Time Access Pre-requisites Cold checkout Impact Schedule Conclusions


Baseline 1 week with beam Pilot Beam for the most part:

single bunch of 5 - 10 x 109 protons Total intensity:

2 - 3 x 1013 protons


Motivation

Beam tests form a integral part of full beam commissioning

This has got to be done anyway but gives lead time for problem resolution, improvements etc.

Beam: Polarity of magnetic elements Aperture in the cold machine Response of key beam instrumentation Magnet field quality

Very Visible Milestone


Integration Full test of a majority of subsystems over more

than one eighth of the ring Allows staged approach to the full problem space Time to fully resolve problems before the real

thing Analysis, improvements, resolution, adjustment

The lessons learnt will reduce the time needed for full commissioning

Breathing space if there are any serious problem(less true now perhaps)


Integration & commission with beam:

Full-blown system wide integration testFull-blown system wide integration test


Option 1

layout


Option 1: Injection R8 – A78 – R7

No temporary dump to be installed at IR7 - use collimators instead (3 primaries, 5 secondaries for the single beam).

No temporary installation of beam instrumentation at IR7.

Need small part of 8-1, all 7-8 hardware commissioned to 450 GeV+.

Minimal Impact Solution


Option 1: Pros and Cons

Minimal requirements on Cryogenics & HWC 2 sectors

Less area classified by RP Less impact on other systems

BI, LBDS

Only one sector test - less systems tested BI, LBDS, collimators missed

BI configuration not perfect Rely on in situ instrumentation Not ideal – no BCT – some implications for measurements


Option 2


Option 2: Injection R8 – A78 – A67 – Dump

Use TCDQ and TCS to block down stream aperture – safeguard only - no installation of temporary dump. RP approval/study required

Beam onto TDE Can use correctors to steer into dump channel - so

should be able to guarantee very little beam goes onto TCDQ etc.

Rely on in situ instrumentation (BCT in dump line etc.). No temporary installation required.

Need small part of 8-1, all 7-8, all 6-7 hardware commissioned to 450 GeV+.


Option 2: Pros & Cons

Test beam dump and related systems Don't irradiate ring - beam onto TDE (beam dump block) Check IR7 optics, performance of warm magnets Beam through 3 IRs, 2 full sectors Full suite of Beam Instrumentation in place

FBCT, Screens, BLMs

Support required for 3 cold sectors cold while work in progress elsewhere in ring - clearly test has more of an impact.

Favoured Solution


Option 3 – Injection point 2

Outside possibility – would imply problems elsewhere Need partial 1-2, complete 2-3 Dump on collimators in IR3


TestsPriority Duration Intensity # shots Intensity Comments

12 p+ p+0 Re-commission TI8 1 12 5E+09 500 2.5E+12

1End TI8, Injection Steering, commission BDI, timing

1 12 5E+09 500 2.5E+12 TDI in, protecting LHCb

2Trajectory acquisition commissioning, trajectory correction, threading, energy matching

1 24 5E+09 100 5.0E+11 Mostly to arc

3Linear Optics from kick/trajectory, coupling, BPM polarity checks, corrector polarity checks

1 12 1E+10 400 4.0E+12 To IR7 or beam dump

4 Check BLM system 1 Parasitic

5 Aperture limits, acceptance 1 18 5E+09 800 4.0E+12 Oscillations, p bumps, BLMs, BCT

6 Momentum aperture 1 6 5E+09 100 5.0E+11 Move energy of SPS beam

7Determination of quench level - calibrate BLMs. Commission multi-bunch injection as necessary

1 36 1E+11 40 4.0E+12 Start with pilot and work slowly up

9Effects of magnetic cycle, variations during decay, reproducibility including energy variation on flat bottom

1 24 1E+10 300 3.0E+12 10 cycles

10 Field errors (high statistics) 2 12 2E+10 200 4.0E+12 Collect data, off-line analysis

TOTAL 144 2.5E+13DAYS 6.0


Access – closing the whole ring Pre-preparation, DSO tests

2 months Closing the ring: patrols etc

3-4 days Experiments out for a week

“a disturbance but acceptable” Access during test possible

to areas that don’t see beam Supervised areas after test

Given analysis, and measurements during and after the test, it is envisaged that:

Certain areas might be declared controlled areas for the first few days after the test;

Thereafter these areas would join the rest of the sectors involved as supervised areas


Monitoring

Radiation monitoring RAMSES operational LHCb: 4-5 monitors planned under RAMSES

Beam Loss Monitors Sensitive to losses at 1% level with pilot bunch intensity

Beam Intensities Beam extracted, injected (and to dump) to be logged

RPG survey after the event and perhaps during the test to ensure that activation remains low. Careful survey afterwards planned after the test near the

injection dump and dump itself.


BICBIC

BICBIC

BICBIC

3/16 of LHC Beam Interlock System

SPS Extr.

Kicker

BICBIC

BICBIC

BICBIC

BICBICBICBIC

SPS Extraction Lines

Interlock System

Radiation levels BLM Powering Interlock Warm Magnet Interlock Vacuum LHCb

Access system will provide input to BIS which will inhibit SPS extraction. Configurable if the case of extraction required & LHC not ready (e.g. extraction tests)

BIS

Required circuits

• Beam 2 Circuits only

• For limited recycling, it would be preferable for listed circuits to be available to, say, the equivalent 1-2 TeV level.


Injection

RQ5.R8 Q5 quadrupole

RQ4.R8 Q4 quadrupole

RD2.R8 D2 recombination dipole

RD1.R8 D1 recombination dipole


Triplets & LHCb

RQX.R8 Inner triplet

RQX.L8 Inner triplet

RD1.L8 D1 recombination dipole


LL5 & DS.L5

RQ7.L8 2*MQM

RQ8.L8 MQML

RQ9.L8 MQM MQMC

RQ10.L8 MQML

RQTL11.L8B2 MQTLI

RQT12.L8B2 MQT

RQT13.L8B2 MQT


A78

Circuits No. of circuits Priority

Main bends MB RB.A78 1 1

Main quads MQ RQF, RQD 2 1

Skew quads MQS RQS [B2] 1 1

Trim quads MQT RQTF,RQTD [B2] 2 1

Orbit correctors MCB RCB [B2] 23 H & 24 V 1

Lattice sextupoles MS RSF,RSD [B2] 4 2

Lattice octupoles MO ROD, ROF [B2] 1 -

Skew sextupoles MSS RSS [B2] 1 3

b3 spool MCS RCS [B2] 1 3

b4 spool MCO RCO [B2] 1 -

b5 spool MCD RCD [B2] 1 -


MR4

RQT13.R7B2 QT

RQT12.R7B2 QT

RQTL11.R7B2 QTLI

RQTL10.R7B2 QTLI

RQTL9.R7B2 QTLI

RQTL8.R7B2 QTLI

RQTL7.R7B2 QTLI

RQ6.R7B2 6* QTLH


6-7


Other systems Injection elements: septa, kickers Collimators Machine Protection Beam Instrumentation:

BPMs, BLMs, BTV, BCT, BST Magnet Model Controls Software/tools Access system Radiation Protection Radiation Monitoring Optics, aperture model

See Chamonix 2006

Test preparation largely orthogonal to HWC


Near test schedule

Phase Time

Sectors checkout, interlock & machine protection tests etc.

Tstart - 2 weeks

Close ring Tstart– 4 day

Access tests & final qualification Tstart – 4 day

Beam to end TI8 Tstart – 1 day

Tests with beam 1 week

Radiation survey Tend + 1 day

Establish supervised areas Tend + 2 day


Injectors



Impact

Sector test makes clear demands on: What is needed to be cold & commissioned and to what level Fairly limited: Beam 2 Circuits & limited recycling,.

Cryogenics, QPS, HWC support required during test In general, low current levels with occasional cycles Interesting possibility of quenches

Access Experiments - “acceptable” HWC – NB that commissioning in other sectors can continue Scheduled access possible (could imagine access/day if we can

guaranteed a reasonable efficient recovery).

LHCb


Conclusions

A sector test would be a useful exercise and undoubtedly speed full commissioning with beam most of it has to be done anyway

Could provide a useful buffer if any major problems are discovered.

The impact is not negligible, mainly because the whole ring has to be closed This in itself is a very useful exercise Machine as is or as will be. Work carries on elsewhere. All major installation will have finished and access to the zones

affected after the test will be limited.

This is a back up - to be invoke if delays 3 months Need minimum lead time of some weeks for preparation


Thanks…

Magnets Luca Bottura Beam Instrumentation Rhodri Jones, Lars Jensen, Stephen Jackson Injection Brennan Goddard, Jan Uythoven Radiation Protection Doris Forkel-Wirth, Helmut Vincke INB Ghislain Roy Access Pierre Ninin LHCb Rolf Linder HWC Roberto Saban & team Installation Katy Foraz Planning Esther Barbero Soto Vacuum Paul Cruikshank, Miguel Jimenez Controls Robin Lauckner ++ OP/AP Roger Bailey, Verena Kain, Massimo

Giovannozzi, Stephane Fartoukh, Helmut Burkhardt, Alex Koshick, Stefano Raedelli, Ralph Assmann, Frank Zimmerman… and the rest of the commissioning team.


Chamonix 2006

Sector test with beam

Overview, motivation and scheduling Mike Lamont

Proposed tests with beam Brennan Goddard

Magnet quenches with beam Alex Koschik

Beam Instrumentation Lars Jensen

Magnet requirements Luca Bottura

Controls requirements Robin Lauckner

Sector test preparation Chair: Pierre Strubin

Planning Esther Barbero Soto

Global Hardware Status Miguel Jimenez

Layout in LSS7 Jan Uythoven

Hardware Commissioning Roberto Saban

State of LHCb for the test Massimiliano Ferro-Luzzi

Radiation Issues Helmut Vincke

Access system Pierre Ninin


Reserve slides


LHCb Worst case scenario: it is estimated that a total 3 x 1011 protons will be lost in the LHCb region during the whole

test. The losses will be distributed over time. It has to be noticed that this number is quite pessimistic – under “normal” beam conditions the losses are more in the order of 1x10-4.

The aperture in LHCb is large; the injection optics means relatively small beams in the inner triplet to the right of the experiment; the separation and crossing angle bumps will be off; there is therefore no reason to expect significant losses in this region.

RP conclusion (H. Vincke) (Preliminary, based on extrapolations of presently available exemplary calculations):

Dose rates: All 3 x 1011 protons will be lost in carbon surrounded by steel and copper (already existing calculation) at the last

day of the 14 days of tests: maximum 13 uSv/h .

The 3 x 1011 protons will be lost in one point after one week. After the cooling time of another week the maximum dose rate will be 2.8 uSv/h. This scenario can be considered as a more realistic approximation of continuous losses (at the same loss point) over two weeks.

Assuming that the new French law on area classification will not become stricter than the present Swiss one:

Non-designated area: < 2.5 uSv/h for temporary stay (0.5 uSv/h for permanent working places, i.e. assuming 2000 hours/year)

This goal seems to be achievable, even under pessimistic assumptions. In case the dose rates will be higher

(e.g. due to an incident), the area (around the loss point) will have to be classified as supervised area (radiation workers B in the worst case, but most probably VCT status (physicists and technicians from outside institutes will receive dosimeters without medical certificate) will be sufficient – to be checked).

Date post:	09-Jan-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	courtney
View:	33 times
Download:	0 times

Options for Possible Sector Test

Documents