Study of cleaning performance with ATS optics for post LS1
description
Transcript of Study of cleaning performance with ATS optics for post LS1
Daniele Mirarchi, BE-ABP-HSS Meeting
1
Study of cleaning performance with ATS optics for post LS1
Daniele Mirarchi, Stefano Redaelli, R. Bruce
On behalf of the LHC Collimation Team
Special thanks to S. Fartoukh for the useful discussions and help on optics modifications
15/5/14
Daniele Mirarchi, BE-ABP-HSS Meeting
2
Introduction
15/5/14
Possibility to implement the ATS optics at the post LS1 LHC restart
Study of its influence on cleaning performance of the collimation system are required
Complete loss map simulations made for various machine and system configurations:
Optics versions:- Nominal (NOM)- ATS
Collimators settings:- mm_kept- sigma_kept
Simulations made for each combination of them, for both planes and both beams at 6.5TeV
Comparative studies between these 16 cases are shown in the next
Daniele Mirarchi, BE-ABP-HSS Meeting
3
mm_kept settings sigma_kept settings
Configurations
15/5/14
Collimation layout:
same settings in mm as in the 2012 IR7-TCP same settings as in mm_kept,Nominal retraction in sigma for the rest
Key optics settings:
Crossing scheme values in MADX (V.5.02.00) modified each time in order to get always the same crossing angles.
IP PX [μrad] PY [μrad]
1 0 145
2 0 170
5 145 0
8 -250 0
Daniele Mirarchi, BE-ABP-HSS Meeting
4
“Observables”
15/5/14
Main parameters for comparative studies of optics influence on collimation performance:
Average value of losses density in the limiting regions of the whole LHC
Integrated losses in the limiting regions of the whole LHC
Average value of losses: calculated on a sub-set of bins, in which a reasonable number of primary protons are lost (to take low the statistical error, i.e. 1p in 1bin has 100% of error)
Various “threshold” were probed to identify how it effects the average value.
Final threshold chosen in order to have a reasonable statistical error (<30%) and a number of bin on which make sense to perform an average and a standard deviation (min 20bins)
Integrated losses: are given by the sum of all primary protons lost in “interesting” losses distributions
Daniele Mirarchi, BE-ABP-HSS Meeting
5
Beam 1
7/2/14
ATS vs NOM, H plane
NOMINAL OPTICS
ATS OPTICS
Whole LHC, horizontal plane, mm_kept collimator settings
!!!
Comments on H planeNew dangerous peak losses appeared just after IP8!
Due to the dispersion mismatch induced by the crossing scheme!Same peaks are seen in HL-LHC simulations, but they are cured by IR7 CRYO-Collimators
Stephane gave me a very nice tool to insert “a fake phase kick” between cells 78 and 81
Produced a NOM thin opt. with IP8 β*=3m: no significant changes seen in high of those peaks
no significant changes seen in high of those peaks
After many tests, the only phase shift would cure those peaks bringing them to NOM values would be π
This would imply ~7degree per cell, which is unfeasible as Stephane told me.
Many tricks tried with Stephane Fartoukh to decrease those dangerous dispersive peaks after IP8: Only difference between the two optics: IP8 β*=3m in ATS, while β*=10m in NOM
Tried to rematch IR7-ATS with IR7-NOM values of Dx and DPx at first TCP (TCP.D6L7.B1)
Summary H planeIR7
ZOOMNOMINAL OPTICS ATS OPTICS
Config. Average losses Integrated losses
Q8-9 Q10-11 Q10(8) B-T 16 T18 Q8-9 Q10-11 Q10(8) B-T 16 T18
mm+ ATS
2.1e-5 1.5e-5 2.5e-5 1.7e-5 6.7e-6 6.4e-4 3.3e-4 1.8e-5 3.7e-5 5.8e-6
mm+ NOM
1.5e-5 1.4e-5 - - - 4.1e-4 3.4e-4 - - -
sigma+ ATS
1.8e-5 1.3e-5 9.9e-6 7.1e-6 6.3e-6 5.2e-4 2.7e-4 1.6e-5 3.0e-5 4.1e-6
sigma+ NOM
1.3e-5 1.1e-5 - - - 3.1e-4 2.7e-4 - - -
Q8-9Q10-11 Q8-9
Q10-11
ZOOM ofdangerous peaks in IR8
Q10BC16-QT16
QT18
“Visual” summary H planePrevious summary table in histograms
mm_kept settings, average losses mm_kept settings, integrated losses
sigma_kept settings, average losses sigma_kept settings, integrated losses
ATS/
NO
M
ATS/
NO
M
ATS/
NO
M
ATS/
NO
M
“Visual” summary H planeBin by bin ratio: mm+ATS/mm+NOM (not significative for comparisons, just to give you the feeling)
Ratio only for losses on collimators (important for possible damages) IR7
ATS vs NOM, V plane
NOMINAL OPTICS
ATS OPTICS
Whole LHC, horizontal plane, mm_kept collimator settings
!!!
Summary V planeIR7
ZOOMNOMINAL OPTICS ATS OPTICS
Config. Average losses Integrated losses
Q8-9 Q10-11 Q10(8) B-T 16 T18 Q8-9 Q10-11 Q10(8) B-T 16 T18
mm+ ATS
1.6e-5 1.4e-5 1.3e-5 1.4e-5 9.0e-6 4.9e-4 3.5e-4 2.7e-5 3.0e-5 1.0e-5
mm+ NOM
1.6e-5 1.4e-5 - - - 4.7e-4 4.0e-4 - - -
sigma+ ATS
1.6e-5 1.4e-5 8.7e-6 8.5e-6 6.1e-6 3.8e-4 2.9e-4 2.2e-5 2.2e-5 8.3e-6
sigma+ NOM
1.4e-5 1.2e-5 - - - 3.6e-4 2.3e-4 - - -
Q8-9Q10-11 Q8-9
Q10-11
ZOOM ofdangerous peaks in IR8
Q10BC16-QT16
QT18
“Visual” summary V planePrevious summary table in histograms
mm_kept settings, average losses mm_kept settings, integrated losses
sigma_kept settings, average losses sigma_kept settings, integrated losses
ATS/
NO
M
ATS/
NO
M
ATS/
NO
M
ATS/
NO
M
“Visual” summary H planeBin by bin ratio: mm+ATS/mm+NOM (not significative for comparisons, just to give you the feeling)
Ratio only for losses on collimators (important for possible damages) IR7
Daniele Mirarchi, BE-ABP-HSS Meeting
15
Beam 2
7/2/14
Daniele Mirarchi, BE-ABP-HSS Meeting
16
ATS vs NOM, H plane
15/5/14
NOMINAL OPTICS
ATS OPTICS
Whole LHC, horizontal plane, mm_kept collimator settings
Summary H planeIR7-DS limiting location for the whole LHC, summary of expected losses on Q 8-9-10-11
(shown only plots for mm_kept settings, more conservative. Better performance are achieved with sigma_kept settings)
IR7ZOOM
NOMINAL OPTICS ATS OPTICS
Config. Average losses Integrated losses
Q8-9 Q10-11 Q8-9 Q10-11
mm_kept + ATS 2.2e-5 1.7e-5 6.0e-4 3.1e-4
mm_kept + NOM 2.1e-5 1.3e-5 6.8e-4 3.4e-4
sigma_kept + ATS 1.9e-5 1.4e-5 4.7e-4 2.4e-4
sigma_kept + NOM 1.8e-5 1.2e-5 5.5e-4 2.6e-4
Comparable performance are found, seems that with ATS slightly less and more concentrated losses
Q8-9Q10-11
Q8-9Q10-11
“Visual” summary H planePrevious summary table in histograms
mm_kept settings, average losses mm_kept settings, integrated losses
sigma_kept settings, average losses sigma_kept settings, integrated losses
ATS/
NO
M
ATS/
NO
M
ATS/
NO
M
ATS/
NO
M
“Visual” summary H planeBin by bin ratio: mm+ATS/mm+NOM (not significative for comparisons, just to give you the feeling)
Ratio only for losses on collimators (important for possible damages)
IR7
ATS vs NOM, V plane
NOMINAL OPTICS
ATS OPTICS
Whole LHC, vertical plane, mm_kept collimator settings
Summary V planeIR7-DS limiting location for the whole LHC, summary of expected losses on Q 8-9-10-11
(shown only plots for mm_kept settings, more conservative. Better performance are achieved with sigma_kept settings)
IR7ZOOM
NOMINAL OPTICS ATS OPTICS
Config. Average losses Integrated losses
Q8-9 Q10-11 Q8-9 Q10-11
mm_kept + ATS 1.6e-5 1.3e-5 5.1e-4 3.2e-4
mm_kept + NOM 1.9e-5 1.5e-5 5.5e-4 3.2e-4
sigma_kept + ATS 1.5e-5 1.3e-5 4.0e-4 2.6e-4
sigma_kept + NOM 1.5e-5 1.2e-5 4.3e-4 2.6e-4
Comparable performance are found
Q8-9Q10-11
Q8-9Q10-11
“Visual” summary V planePrevious summary table in histograms
mm_kept settings, average losses mm_kept settings, integrated losses
sigma_kept settings, average losses sigma_kept settings, integrated losses
ATS/
NO
M
ATS/
NO
M
ATS/
NO
M
ATS/
NO
M
“Visual” summary H planeBin by bin ratio: mm+ATS/mm+NOM (not significative for comparisons, just to give you the feeling)
Ratio only for losses on collimators (important for possible damages)
IR7
ConclusionMany configurations where probed to test the influence of ATS optics on the collimations system
performance, with different settings, in both planes, for both beams, at 6.5 TeV.Beam 1:
Horizontal plane: - averaged and integrated losses in the DS systematically higher with ATS opt. than with NOM
opt. Worst case: factor 1.4 in averaged losses, 1.7 in integrated losses - Presence of dangerous peaks in IP8, with a average losses comparable with the ones in the DS.
Vertical plane: - Comparable results are found, however ATS slightly worse than NOM- Presence of dangerous peaks in IP8, with a average losses comparable with the ones in the DS.
Beam 2: Horizontal plane:
- ATS worse than NOM with a factor 1.4 in terms of average losses, but slightly better in terms of integrated losses (factor 0.9)
Vertical plane: - Comparable results are found
Since the worse/comparable performance of the system with ATS w.r.t. NOM opt. further and more detailed studies are needed (i.e. coupled simulations with FLUKA to access the effects on collimators too)
Work is still on-going to try to mitigate dangerous spikes at IP8 (tried also to close more the TCT, but it’s not enought)