A Summary of the Fermilab Magnetic Measurements Of MICE Spectrometer Solenoid 2 M. Tartaglia 18 January 2013.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
MICE Magnetic Investigation of T2 MICE/ISIS Target Meeting 17 th September 2010 P J Smith – University of Sheffield.
Advertisements

CM-18 June The Measurement and Monitoring of the Field from the MICE Magnets Michael A Green Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, USA Frank Filthaut.
Magnet quench during a training run Magnet electrical circuit schematic PROGRESS ON THE MODELING AND MODIFICATION OF THE MICE SUPERCONDUCTING SPECTROMETER.
The 23 rd MICE Collaboration Meeting -1- ICST/HIT Jan.13 to 17, Harbin/China Large Prototype Coil Test and Plan Fengyu Xu Institute of Cryogenics.
23 October 2005MICE Meeting at RAL1 MICE Tracker Magnets, 4 K Coolers, and Magnet Coupling during a Quench Michael A. Green Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory.
LCLS Undulators October 14, 2004 Heinz-Dieter Nuhn, SLAC / SSRL MMF Review Introduction to the LCLS Undulators Heinz-Dieter Nuhn,
Yurii Levashov Undula t or fiducialization test Oct. 14, 2004 Undulator Fiducialization Test Results Fiducialization Tolerances.
Use of a commercial laser tracker for optical alignment James H. Burge, Peng Su, Chunyu Zhao, Tom Zobrist College of Optical Sciences Steward Observatory.
1 The Genoa Tracker Solenoids and their Contribution toward a New Design Michael A. Green Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and Pasquale Fabbricatore.
Isaac Vasserman Magnetic Measurements and Tuning 10/14/ I. Vasserman LCLS Magnetic Measurements and Tuning.
Yurii Levashov LCLS Undulator Fiducialization October 20, 2005 *Work supported in part by DOE Contract DE-AC02-76SF LCLS.
A U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science Laboratory Operated by The University of Chicago Argonne National Laboratory Office of Science U.S. Department.
Velo to T Alignment - Reminder General Strategy  Perform relative VELO-to-IT/OT alignment using  X,  Y at the center of magnet and  X,  Y (each.
(FEA) Analysis P J Smith University of Sheffield 27 th November 2008.
Zachary Wolf Undulator Oct 12, LCLS Undulator Tuning Zack Wolf, Yurii Levashov, Achim Weidemann, Seva Kaplounenko,
Solenoid Magnetic Field Mapping Paul S Miyagawa University of Manchester Objectives Mapper machine Mapper software Simulation Corrections Fitting Future.
Coil Manufacture, Assembly and Magnetic Calibration Facility for Warm and Cold Magnetic Measurements of LHC Superconducting Magnets CERN AT-MTM 1 / 21.
April 24, 2008 FNAL ILC SCRF Meeting 1 Main Linac Superconducting Quadrupole V. Kashikhin, T. Fernando, J. DiMarco, G. Velev.
Page 1 Christian Grefe, DESY FLC Status of PCMAG fieldmapping analysis Annual EUDET Meeting Paris, Status of PCMAG fieldmapping analysis Christian.
19 Nov 08,ILC08Cherrill Spencer Rotating Coil System Description 1 Short description of the SLAC rotating coil system used to measure the CIEMAT-made prototype.
1 / 19 M. Gateau CERN – Geneva – CH 14th International Magnetic Measurement Workshop September 2005, Geneva, Switzerland.
Rotating Coils - Giordana Severino – Rotating Coils PACMAN meeting Printed Circuit Coils – Future developments.
Offline Data Analysis Software Steve Snow, Paul S Miyagawa (University of Manchester) John Hart (Rutherford Appleton Laboratory) Objectives + requirements.
Offline Data Analysis Software Steve Snow, Paul S Miyagawa (University of Manchester) John Hart (Rutherford Appleton Laboratory) Objectives + requirements.
23 July 2012D. Sober1 Some thoughts on Hall D tagger magnet field mapping D. Sober Catholic University of America GlueX Beam/Tagger biweekly meeting 23.
LASER AND ADVANCES IN METROLOGY
ATLAS Inner Detector Magnetic Field I am responsible for providing the magnetic field map for the ATLAS Inner Detector.  6m long x 2m diameter cylindrical.
LCLS-II cryomodule alignment. 2 Wednesday meeting, 6/17/2015 Topics Alignment of Components inside the CM Tunnel Network Tolerances LCLS-II cryomodule.
Some Thoughts on Magnetic Measurements for MICE Michael A. Green Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Berkeley CA 94720, USA.
ME451:Kinematics and Dynamics of Machine Systems (Spring 09)
First Reconstruction Results on the Alignment of Muon Endcap Chambers in the CMS Experiment at CERN S. Guragain, G. Baksay, M. Hohlmann Florida Tech 74.
1 J.DiMarco 16Nov2010 LQS01b Magnetic Measurements Results ( preliminary ) J. DiMarco 16Nov2010.
July 31, 2003Tevatron Alignment Review JCT (Re-)Shimming of Tevatron Dipoles  Recent ‘cold lift’ measurements indicate ‘creep’ or shrinkage of the coil/cryostat.
MICE RFCC Module Update Allan DeMello Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory MICE CM29 at RAL, UK February 17, 2011.
Torque on a Current Loop
ADAMS Assignment 6 ME451:Kinematics and Dynamics of Machine Systems (Fall 2013) Assigned: November 13, 2013 Due: November 20, 2013.
Muon Cooling Channel Superconducting Magnet Systems Muon Collider Task Force Meeting on July 31, 2006 V.S. Kashikhin.
22 October 2005MICE Meeting at RAL1 Tracker Solenoid Overview Michael A. Green Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory MICE Collaboration Meeting 22 October 2005.
November 19, 2008 SLAC Linear Collider Department Slide 1 ILC Superconducting Quadrupole Characterization J. C. Sheppard, Cherrill Spencer, et al. SLAC.
Muons at CalDet Introduction Track Finder Package ADC Corrections Drift Points Path Length Attenuation Strip-to-Strip Calibration Scintillator Response.
Physics requirements  mapping spec’s Strategy: analyze measurements to get field Mapping plan: where/how to map Engineering design: sensor, fixtures,
Physics Requirements Sensitivity to Manufacturing Imperfections Strategy  where to map field  measure deviation from ideal model  fit to error tables.
Emulsion Test Beam first results Annarita Buonaura, Valeri Tioukov On behalf of Napoli emulsion group This activity was supported by AIDA2020.
Design and Measurement Results for the Permanent Magnet Undulators for the Linac Coherent Light Source Facility II D. Arbelaez BeMa2014, 01/02/2014.
CERN –GSI/CEA MM preparation meeting, Magnetic Measurements WP.
1CEA/ Saclay/ SACM CARE/SRF/WP11 Development of a new Beam Position Monitor for FLASH, XFEL and ILC Cryomodules Claire Simon, Michel Luong, Stéphane Chel,
Rotating Coil Measurement Errors* Animesh Jain Superconducting Magnet Division Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY 11973, USA 2 nd Workshop on Beam.
Superconducting Cryogen Free Splittable Quadrupole for Linear Accelerators Progress Report V. Kashikhin for the FNAL Superconducting Magnet Team (presented.
Review of Alignment Tolerances for LCLS-II SC Linac Arun Saini, N. Solyak Fermilab 27 th April 2016, LCLS-II Accelerator Physics Meeting.
MAGNET MAPPING J. Cobb V. Blackmore (not responsible for the content of this talk) 27 September 2017.
y x Vincenzo Monaco, University of Torino HERA-LHC workshop 18/1/2005
Re-mapping the Residual B-Field in NA62
Motivation We would like to be able to scale the SHMS Golden Tune we determine this Fall from 2.2 GeV/c to other momenta with linearity errors less than.
Correlated Misalignments Studies for LCLS-II SC Linac
Magnetic Field Mapping
Magnetic System Overview Solenoid and Anti-DID
Why do we need to know the fields / map the magnets?
Status of the CLIC DR wiggler design and production at BINP
Magnetic Fields and Forces
CLIC Main Linac Cavity BPM Snapshot of the work in progress
Development of the Canted Cosine Theta Superconducting Magnet
Magnetic System Overview Solenoid and DID
Tracker to Solenoid Alignment
PERMANENT MAGNET QUADRUPOLE FOR THE LINAC 4 CCDTL
IR Lattice with Detector Solenoid
LCLS Undulator Tuning And Fiducialization
Measurement and Characterization of a 5T Solenoid Field
K. J. Radcliff, R. P. Walsh, and R. P. Reed
Magnetic measurements at ambient temperature on the MQXFBP1
Presentation transcript:

A Summary of the Fermilab Magnetic Measurements Of MICE Spectrometer Solenoid 2 M. Tartaglia 18 January 2013

The Spectrometer Solenoid M1 M2 E1 C E2 40 cm diameter warm bore 2.6m long cryostat SS2 under test; SS1 under repair All coils wound on one machined Aluminum (6061-T6) Mandrel; Outer Aluminum Bands

Solenoid Power, Control & Monitoring Testing and Measurements used 3 power supplies: Configured to power M1-only, M2-only, E1+C+E2 in series

The Measurement System Hall Probe: Senis 10T probe (S/N5406) Field Readout:Keithley 2700 Mux/DMM – Student developed Labview system Probe positioning System – Probe mount with close pair of bearings shaft side – Long G10 shaft (sections) with continuous scale – Scribe line to keep probe angular orientation – Stainless Steel guide tube (2 joined sections) Tested in TC1206 at 4 T to ensure non magnetic joint – Guide Tube positioning plates at each end Tube positioning slots Machined to 0.1mm precision G10 capture rings each end fix the Z position reference

The Measurement System

3D Hall probe calibration checked against NMR probe up to 4 T at Fermilab MTF in Tevatron dipole TC1206; stainless steel guide tube and seam also verified as non- magnetic.

The Measurement System Coordinate Systems – Probe Readout: +Z is from M1 towards E2 +Y is up +X is to the left as viewed from M1 looking toward E2 – Probe Position: +Z is from M1 towards E2; measured wrt M1 end of the guide tube (fixed by capture rings wrt end plates) “X100” is really X= -100 mm in probe frame “Y100” is really Y= -100 mm in probe frame – Field: Bz points from E2 to M1 (along –Z); Opera matches Data +Bx +By +Bz

The Measurement System Magnet Current Readout – Visual front panel display on each PS – Internal shunt recorded by LINUX monitoring sys. – Digital values agreed with nominal settings (<1%) Measurement Procedure (2 people) – Start a new file for each Z-scan Encode coils, current, date into file name – Move Guide Tube to desired location, adjust ref. angle – Manually position probe in Z (moving in or out) 1 or 2 cm steps, except when centering bearings near end – Adjust probe angle to align scribe mark – Manually enter current, Z position to Labview GUI – Trigger reading of Hall probe voltages (avg ~3/min) Automatically recording 10 measurements for each Z step

The Measurement History 6/11/2012 – 0 A noise, offset levels – Checkout 10 A M1+M2, X0Y0 6/12 – 0 A noise, offset check – M2 50A scans, X0Y0; X100Y0; X0Y100 – ECE 50A scans, X0Y0; X100Y0 6/13 – Shaft jammed in tube; removed and repaired (Z shifted!) – M1 50A scan, X0Y0 – ALL 185 A started (3 points), then Quench 6/14 – ALL 150A scans, X0Y0; X100Y0; X0Y100

The Magnetic Model Opera2D is adequate (assuming cyl. symmetry) – Independently modeled in Opera3D by Marc B. As-Built Geometry and Winding Data Used – MICE note 207, table 5 for SS2 (SS1 is VERY close) – Dimensions known at room temperature to 50μm – Thermal Contraction Coefficient ? I used 3*10 -3 This gives 7.5 mm shrinkage over the magnet length! 4*10 -3 is probably a better number for Aluminum… Generate {Bz, Br} vs Z to match each data set −For Specified coils at 50A or 150A, at R=0 and R=100mm −Fine 1mm spacing in Z, to make best match to data

The Magnetic Model

The Data Analysis Use MATLAB to calculate dBz, dBr (data-model) – For each data set, determine Z offset to give best agreement to match Bz (by eye; to ~± 2mm) – For each Z data, the program: calculates averages, errors of the 10 Bx, By, Bz data measurements calculates BxCor= Bx + α ·Bz, where α=-.016 (later -.018) – Due to constant X-Z tilt of the probe (this is ~ 1 degree) Loops through array of model points, finds index of (Z model -Z offset ) that is closest to Z data then calculates dB=B data -B model for that Z data Writes a new excel spreadsheet of B’s and dB, vs Z – Run program separately to generate dBz and dBr Plot data, model, differences in Excel

Summary of Results 1)Zoffsets, from best match of Bz DateCoilsCurrentPositionZoffset, cm 6/11M1M210X0 Y0(-40.0) 6/12M250X0 Y /12M250X100 Y /12M250X0 Y /12ECE50X0 Y /12ECE50X100 Y /13M150X0 Y /13ALL185X0 Y0QUENCH! 6/14ALL150X0 Y /14ALL150X100 Y /14ALL150X0 Y Shaft stuck

Summary of Results 2)Bz vs Z M1M2 on axis

Summary of Results 2)Bz vs Z M1 on axis

Summary of Results 2)Bz vs Z M2 on axis

Summary of Results 2)Bz vs Z M2 off axis

Summary of Results 2)Bz vs Z M2 off axis

Summary of Results 2)Bz vs Z ECE on axis Why the slope?

Summary of Results 2)Bz vs Z ECE off axis Why the slope?

Summary of Results 2)Bz vs Z ALL on axis 100 G shift in measured Bz 1A change is 2.25T/150A =150 G

Summary of Results 2)Bz vs Z ALL off axis Why the slope?

Summary of Results 2)Bz vs Z ALL off axis Why the slope?

Summary of Results 2)Bz vs Z: Maximum dBz(data-model)/Bz DateCoilsCurrentPositionM1M2ECE 6/11M1M210X0 Y0~1%~7 % 6/12M250X0 Y02.5% 6/12M250X100 Y02.5% 6/12M250X0 Y1003.0% 6/12ECE50X0 Y00.5% 6/12ECE50X100 Y00.5% 6/13M150X0 Y00.5% 6/14ALL150X0 Y00.5%1.0%3.0% 6/14ALL150X100 Y00.5%1.0%3.0% 6/14ALL150X0 Y1000.5%1.0%3.0% Small discrepancies might be improved by a) Z scale (use CTE=4 10-3), b) slight radial offsets (next section)

Summary of Results 2)Bz vs Z: Sensitivity to radial position? For small R, not very: look at M2-only, at peak Bz: at R=0.1m for dR=10mm, dBz/Bz~5/375=1.3% (ECE: even less)

Summary of Results 3)Br vs Z: Sensitivity to radial position M1 50A Br vs Z at R=0.1m Br vs R at peak (Z=-0.3m) Br ~linear with R; dBr/dR= 9.1

Summary of Results 3)Br vs Z: Bx and By offsets Bx(0A) ~ +4 to +5 GBy(0A) ~ 0to -5 G

Summary of Results 3)Br vs Z: M1 on axis - easily affected by probe tilts Consistent with radial offsets ~ 1mm from magnetic axis

Summary of Results 3)Br vs Z: M2 on axis – peak dB/dR ~ 5 R=0:  X ~ +2 mm,  Y ~ -2.5 mm

Summary of Results 3)Br vs Z: Data vs Model M2 off axis – Bx at X=-100mm (compare to –Br(0.1m))

Summary of Results 3)Br vs Z: Data - Model M2 off axis – peak dBr/dR = 6.7 R=0.1m  X~0 (<1mm); By affected by probe rotations!

Summary of Results 3)Br vs Z: Data vs Model M2 off axis – By at Y=-100mm (compare to –Br(0.1m))

Summary of Results 3)Br vs Z: Data - Model M2 off axis – either  Y~ -4mm (or some coil ellipticity?) Bx affected by probe rotations

Summary of Results 3)Br vs Z: Data vs Model ECE on axis – peak dB/dR ~ 9.4 R=0:  X ~ +3 mm,  Y ~ -4 mm Why the slope?

Summary of Results 3)Br vs Z: Data vs Model ECE off axis – Bx at X=-100mm (compare to –Br(0.1m))

Summary of Results 3)Br vs Z: Data - Model ECE off axis –  X ~ +5 mm,  Y (probe rotation)

Summary of Results 3)Br vs Z: Data vs Model ALL on axis – dBr/dR=18.5, 29.3 G/mm at E1,E2  X~ +1.3, +2.1  Y~ -7.4, -7.3 mm Why the By slope? Shift in Bx due to 2 mrad change in probe tilt

Summary of Results 3)Br vs Z: Data vs Model ALL off axis – Bx at X=-100mm (compare to –Br(0.1m))

Summary of Results 3)Br vs Z: Data - Model ALL off axis –  B model /1mm = { 25.7, -11.0, 7.5, -4.5, 17.5, } T/mm  X ~ { 4.7, 1.6, 14.1, 4.2, 7.3, 5.5 } mm (30 G corr. for Bx shift = 1 mrad) (probe rotated in Y)

Summary of Results 3)Br vs Z: Data vs Model ALL off axis – By at Y=-100mm (compare to –Br(0.1m))

Summary of Results 3)Br vs Z: Data - Model ALL off axis –  B model /1mm = { 25.7, -11.0, 7.5, -4.5, 17.5, } T/mm  Y ~ { -5.8, ҉, -16.7, -14.7, -15.4, } mm (probe rotated in X)

Summary of Results 2)Br vs Z:  X,  Y (in mm) DateCoilsCurrentPositionM1M2E1E2 6/11M1M210X0 Y0 6/12M250X0 Y /12M250X100 Y0<1 6/12M250X0 Y /12ECE50X0 Y /12ECE50X100 Y /13M150X0 Y0~1 6/14ALL150X0 Y /14ALL150X100 Y /14ALL150X0 Y Not completely sure what conclusions we can draw from these numbers

Summary of Results 2)Br vs Z: 1)There appears to be a small slope dX/dZ and dY/dZ ~1-2 mrad wrt meas. axis 2)Did cold mass move after the quench (or at 150A due to greater ext. forces)? (or, what else might be going on?) 8 mm shift ! On axis/ Off axis difference

Lessons Learned Improvements To Make – Stiffer beam or tube; Key/slot to fix probe angle – Digital encoder for Z-position (e.g., “string pot”) – Bearings along the length, better shaft centering – Better yet, Motorize and automate the scans Piezo motor - Has to operate in high field. Short probe holder between bearings, drawn by motor Additional Data to Take – Each coil powered separately, on & off axis – Wider range of currents, better current monitors Capture current from the shunt directly, with probe V’s