Injection protection with TDI-TCLI
-
Upload
eagan-wolf -
Category
Documents
-
view
22 -
download
1
description
Transcript of Injection protection with TDI-TCLI
Injection protection with TDI-TCLI
• Introduction and scope
• Parameters and Assumptions
• Simulation methodology
• Simulation results
• Implications for TCLI design
• Future work
• Summary
Introduction and scope • Failures of LHC injection kickers are protected against
with TDI and TCLI collimators (with TCDD mask).• TDI and TCLI are 2-sided moveable objects.
• TCLI locations already defined by phase advance
• TCLI spec. required (robustness, tolerances, settings)
• Simulated protection level as a function of system (TDI + TCLI) aperture.
• Checked utility of TCLIs (simulated with, without)
• Treated IR8 only (but should hold for IR2)
Overview of injection region (IR8)MSI
TDI
TCDD
TCLI2TCLI1
MKI
Which failures…?
• Most dangerous case is where whole beam grazes TDI face….
• This can happen in several ways:– Wrong settings (kicker, TDI, correctors, …):
• can in principle be ‘prevented’ by interlocks and/or adequate procedures.
– MKI flashover • no defence – rely on passive protection AND
rareness of the event.
Taken as worst case for simulation
Derive particles outside aperture for quoted errors and failure case, as a function of system (TDI plus TCLI) aperture
• Beam2 particles are tracked with MADX through TI 8 and injection region of LHC• TDI (4 slices), TCLI1 and TCLI2 included.• Generate typical random TL error pattern with ‘max’ y offset at MKI • Introduce phase errors in Q4 • Scan aperture over range of interest (define TDI, TCLI settings)
• Scan MKI kick over range of interest (for scan: MKI as single kicker)
• Track particles through, counting losses at TDI and TCLIs• Calculate number of particles in LHC above aperture limit
• Calculate max. p+ into LHC vs. aperture• Calculate risk of damaging flashover vs. aperture• Calculate load on TLCI vs. aperture
• Simulated with 1000 p+ (interested in 5% statistics)• Gaussian beam in y, y’
Simulation methodology
Simulation ranges
MKI-TDI phase error TCLIs IN TCLIs OUT
+20 deg X X
0 deg* X X
-20 deg X X
*the quoted (OB) tolerance on k Q4 is 20 units = 2 x 10-3, which translates to a phase error of about 3 x 10-3 rad, or an offset of about 3 x10-2 y – hence this was neglected in the analysis (given the ~0.1 step sizes)
6 10Aperture setting41 steps
+0.13 mrad
-0.13 mradM
KI
kick
241
step
s
What was included….• Assumed normal distribution of various errors, derived 95% confidence
limit (2rms) as representing max. level for the combination of these errors at the moment of the rare kicker failure
• Injection error (y) ±0.45 mm at injection point• SPS orbit errors (0.1 mm / 1 rad rms in SPS)• Transfer line magnet ripples (used quoted PC tolerances in MAD)• Transfer line drifts (assumed 0.2 mm rms at injection point)
• TDI mechanical ±0.2 mm• TCLI mechanical ±0.075 mm• Orbit precision ±0.05 mm (setup with intermediate beam)
• Coldbore aperture 8.2 (for n1 = 6.8)• Damage limit 2.4 x 1012 p+ (5% of full batch)• MKI-TDI phase error 20˚ (made by change of ~20% in Q4
kick!)
• 288 x 1.7 x 1011 p+ injected• Gaussian beam in y, y’
Values from J.Wenninger, M.Lamont, L.Bruno, V.Maire, O.R.Jones and O.Brüning
What was neglected…• Sweep effect of MKI kicker
• Will slightly (few %) improve situation as regards beam into LHC above aperture limit, and load on TCLI.
• Will be much more important when looking at losses in LHC at aperture limits at injection.
• Apertures (but checked > ~9 in IR 8)• Transfer line failures (magnet trips – MSI, MCIAV, …).
• More complete analysis to be made with same tool• Will also include TCDI (performance quantification)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
-0.4
0
-0.3
5
-0.3
0
-0.2
5
-0.2
0
-0.1
5
-0.1
0
-0.0
5
0.0
0
0.0
5
0.1
0
0.1
5
0.2
0
0.2
5
0.3
0
0.3
5
0.4
0
Amplitude (sigma)
Nu
mb
er
of
bu
nch
es
0.9900
0.9925
0.9950
0.9975
1.0000
1.0025
1.0050
1.0075
1.0100
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
time (s)
no
rmal
ised
kic
k
ResultsLoad on TDI slices 1 and 4 for +20 deg phase error
ResultsLoad on TCLI1 and TCLI2 for +20 deg MKI-TDI phase error
ResultsLoad on TCLI1 and TCLI2 for -20 deg MKI-TDI phase error
ResultsBeam above 8.2 y in LHC for +20 deg MKI-TDI phase error, with and without TCLIs
With TCLIs Without TCLIs
ResultsMaximum beam above 8.2 y in LHC, for cases considered
0 deg +20 deg -20 deg
TDI only 7.56 6.70 6.70
With TCLI 7.78 7.92 7.73
Vertical aperture in for 5% protection limit
Attempt at risk ‘quantification’
• Consider only MKI flashover case (probability of settings error??)• Assume same results apply for IR 2• Assume 1 MKI flashover per 8 magnets per year ±0.2 mrad kick per MKI
Results
Max. load on TCLIs
Results
TCLI1 TCLI2
• Even for zero phase error, TCLIs help (better tolerances…)- intercept 10-18% for TCLI1- intercept 2-6% for TCLI2 (location not v. good ~15m y)
• For 20 deg phase error, can intercept ~40% of beam
Proposed TCLI specification
• 1.2 m long jaw of C (hBN, …?)• Surface flatness 0.1 mm• Positioning accuracy ±0.025 mm• Cooling? Depends on beam heating…• Bakeable
• TCLI2 at Q6 – looks identical to TCS… check integration• TCLI1 at D1 - common beampipe (maybe looks like
proposed D1 TCT, but with low-Z jaw on other beam?)
Errors giving min. H separation between beams
Looks close (TCLI collimates but beam 2 close to jaw)- can reduce jaw width by 5mm in direction of beam 1…- make more detailed study to check aperture (mech. tolerance etc.)
IP2 (V6.4)
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
beam1
Errors giving min. H separation between beams
IP8 (V6.4)
Looks OK (TCLI collimates and beam 2 does not interfere)
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
-50-40-30-20-100102030
beam1
Summary• With TDI and TCLIs, 0.05 dangerous events per y, for aperture of ~7.75 y
• TCLIs improve the protection even without MKI-TDI phase errors gain ~0.25 y in aperture for same protection level
• For large (20˚) MKI-TDI phase errors, with TCLIs gain ~1.0 y in aperture for same protection
– TCLIs may allow some tuning of the injection optics, e.g. if need MKI-TDI phase advance ≠ 90˚….
• TCLIs desirable, to cover specified errors and to allow flexibility in operational protection strategies
• Recommend robust (C, hBN, …) 1.2m long TCLIs– Maximum beam loads on TCLIs can be 10-40% of a full batch.– Protection with 1.2m C adequate (TCDI analysis: attenuation + emittance dilution)– No worries about beam loads if protection strategy changes – e.g. if TDI has to be
retracted more due to unacceptable load from secondary halo…– Vacuum - feasibility seems OK (TCLI1 better than TDI, retracted after injection)
• Settings strategy and operational procedures also start to be considered
Future work• Completing the MKI flashover analysis
– IR 2– Expected level of load on TCLIs and risk for flashover with ‘real’ pattern
of random effects– Secondary halo load on TDI and possible implications…– Evaluation of possible optimised positions (higher y for TCLI2, separate
beampipes for TCLI1, …)
• Extension to other ‘injection’ error scenarios– Single failures in SPS / transfer lines / injections (septa, dipole families)
(especially horizontal plane…)– Check worst-case combination of random effects without any failure– Losses at other apertures (line + LHC aperture models)– Evaluation of mismatch into LHC from tilted line, plus expected
mismatch (with errors) after correction
• Losses at LHC aperture limits during first turns at injection– Include kicker waveforms