24/01/08Energy deposition, LIUWG, Elena Wildner1 Upgrade phase 1: Energy deposition in the triplet Elena Wildner Francesco Cerutti Marco Mauri.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Recap of heat loads and peak doses from HL-LHC Q1 to Q7 L.S. Esposito, F. Cerutti HL-LHC WP3 meeting, 22 May 2014.
Advertisements

Energy deposition in Q0 Elena Wildner 19/04/07. Strategy 1. Define a TAS to protect the Q0 2. Optics:  *= 0.25m 3. Calculate, with some optimization.
FLUKA status and plan Sixth TLEP workshop CERN, October 2013 F. Cerutti #, A. Ferrari #, L. Lari *, A. Mereghetti # # EN Dept. & *BE Dept.
Quadrupole Magnetic Design for an Electron Ion Collider Paul Brindza May 19, 2008.
ENERGY DEPOSITION IN HYBRID NbTi/Nb 3 Sn TRIPLET CONFIGURATIONS OF THE LHC PHASE I UPGRADE FermilabAccelerator Physics Center Nikolai Mokhov, Fermilab.
R. Ostojic, WAMSDO, 19 May 2008 LHC Insertion Region Upgrade Phase I 1.Upgrade goals and milestones 2.Review of IR systems: main findings 3.The emerging.
Crab Cavities in IR1 and IR5 Some considerations on tunnel integration What will be the situation in the tunnel after the LHC IR Phase-1 Upgrade. What.
Impact of synchrotron radiation in LEPTON COLLIDER arcs
Superconducting Large Bore Sextupole for ILC
HL-LHC: UPDATE ON MAGNETS
E. Todesco PROPOSAL OF APERTURE FOR THE INNER TRIPLET E. Todesco CERN, Geneva Switzerland With relevant inputs from colleagues F. Cerutti, S. Fartoukh,
DS Heat Load Scenarios in Collision Points and Cleaning Insertions. Prepared by F. Cerutti, A.Lechner and G. Steele on behalf of the FLUKA team (EN-STI)
Review of Quench Limits FermilabAccelerator Physics Center Nikolai Mokhov Fermilab 1 st HiLumi LHC / LARP Collaboration Meeting CERN November 16-18, 2011.
Guido Sterbini CERN – MCS - MA Section Meeting, 8 th February 2007.
Bus-Bar Quench Studies Summary of Available Calculations LMC Meeting August 5 th 2009 Bus-Bar Quench Studies Summary of Available Calculations LMC Meeting.
Optimization of Field Error Tolerances for Triplet Quadrupoles of the HL-LHC Lattice V3.01 Option 4444 Yuri Nosochkov Y. Cai, M-H. Wang (SLAC) S. Fartoukh,
General Considerations for the Upgrade of the LHC Insertion Magnets
CERN Accelerator School Superconductivity for Accelerators Case study 1 Paolo Ferracin ( ) European Organization for Nuclear Research.
Thursday Summary of Working Group I Initial questions I: LHC LUMI 2005; ; ArcidossoOliver Brüning 1.
Updates on FLUKA simulations of TCDQ halo loads at IR6 FLUKA team & B. Goddard LHC Collimation Working Group March 5 th, 2007.
WP6 status Paolo Fessia. Summary Status of the WP6 and change of WP coordinator Lowβ quadrupole status Corrector status Cryostat status.
Aperture requirements versus   in the LSS magnets. Strategy and general considerations First inventory for Phase I Do we really need to change D1 for.
Joint IR Studies: Operating Margins Nikolai Mokhov Fermilab bnl - fnal- lbnl - slac US LHC Accelerator Research Program LARP Collaboration Meeting SLAC.
Heat Deposition Pre-Evaluation In the context of the new cryo-collimator and 11-T dipole projects we present a review of the power deposition studies on.
4/27/06 1 US LHC ACCELERATOR RESEARCH PROGRAM brookhaven - fermilab – berkeley - slac US LARP Inner Triplet Cryogenics and Heat Transfer LARP Collaboration.
Shielding the 140 mm option F. Cerutti, L.S. Esposito on behalf of CERN FLUKA team.
The HiLumi LHC Design Study is included in the High Luminosity LHC project and is partly funded by the European Commission within the Framework Programme.
AT-VAC SPC Nicolaas KOS Beam Screens for Inner Triplet Magnets LHC Upgrade Phase 1 Nicolaas KOS  LHC Upgrade phase 1  Inner triplet BS Requirements.
Francesco Cerutti ENERGY DEPOSITION ASPECTS FOR LHCb REQUEST 5th Joint HiLumi LHC - LARP Annual Meeting Oct 29, 2015 through L.S. Esposito’s work and essential.
DESIGN STUDIES IR Magnet Design P. Wanderer LARP Collaboration Meeting April 27, 2006.
E. Todesco LAYOUT FOR INTERACTION REGIONS IN HI LUMI LHC E. Todesco CERN, Geneva Switzerland Acknowledgements: B. Dalena, M. Giovannozzi, R. De Maria,
E. Todesco HL LHC LAYOUT FROM Interaction POINT TO SEPARATION DIPOLE E. Todesco CERN, Geneva Switzerland Acknowledgements: B. Dalena, M. Giovannozzi, R.
08/11/2007M. Giovannozzi – CARE-HHH-APD IR’071 Optics issues for Phase 1 and Phase 2 upgrades Massimo Giovannozzi, CERN Outline: –Option for Phase 1 and.
Energy Deposition Issues in LHC IR Upgrades LHC IR Upgrades Workshop Pheasant Run, St. Charles, IL October 3-4, 2005 Fermilab LHC IR 2005 Nikolai Mokhov,
Energy deposition with and without IR3 upgrade Predicted energy deposition with and without IR3 (IR7)dispersion suppressor collimators. Gain from collimators.
A liner in the Corrector package A Cu liner has been inserted in the gap between the CBT and the coil aperture of all the corrector package elements (see.
31/07/08Review new IRs: Energy Deposition1 Energy Deposition in the New IRs Francesco Cerutti, Marco Mauri, Alessio Mereghetti, Ezio Todesco, Elena Wildner.
Field Quality Specifications for Triplet Quadrupoles of the LHC Lattice v.3.01 Option 4444 and Collimation Study Yunhai Cai Y. Jiao, Y. Nosochkov, M-H.
The HiLumi LHC Design Study is included in the High Luminosity LHC project and is partly funded by the European Commission within the Framework Programme.
ENERGY DEPOSITION AND TAS DIAMETER
Status of the magnet studies in the ARCS (FLUKA)
CERN, 11th November 2011 Hi-lumi meeting
Francesco Cerutti, Andrea Tsinganis WP10 Energy deposition & R2E
Hervé Allain, R. van Weelderen (CERN)
Hervé Allain, R. van Weelderen (CERN)
BEAM LOSS MONITORING SYSTEM
SLHC –PP WP6 LHC IR Upgrade - Phase I.
Hervé Allain, R. van Weelderen (CERN)
Energy deposition studies on magnets. Aim. First applications
D0 and its integrability
Cedric Garion, TE-VSC-DLM, WP12
Hervé Allain, R. van Weelderen (CERN)
Q0 magnet, cooling, support ideas
Yingshun Zhu Accelerator Center, Magnet Group
SEMI-ANALYTIC APPROACHES TO MAGNET DESIGN
Challenges for FCC-ee MDI mechanical design
DEBRIS IMPACT IN THE TAS-TRIPLET-D1 REGION
Study on Thermal Deposition in the Interaction Region Magnets
Large aperture Q4 M. Segreti, J.M. Rifflet
Beam-Induced Energy Deposition Studies in IR Magnets
MQYY: superconducting Quadrupole magnet for Hl-lhc
Upgrade phase 1: Energy deposition in the triplet
Cooling aspects for Nb3Sn Inner Triplet quadrupoles and D1
Wednesday Summary of Working Group I
1st HiLumi LHC / LARP Collaboration Meeting 2011 Nov 17th
PROPOSAL OF APERTURE FOR THE INNER TRIPLET
Revised estimates of heat loads and radiation damage in the IT and D1
Beam Loss Simulations LHC
Review of Quench Limits
Large emittance scenario for the Phase II Upgrade of the LHC
Presentation transcript:

24/01/08Energy deposition, LIUWG, Elena Wildner1 Upgrade phase 1: Energy deposition in the triplet Elena Wildner Francesco Cerutti Marco Mauri

24/01/08 Energy deposition, LIUWG, Elena Wildner 2 Outline Nominal, IR1 and IR5 Some basic considerations The upgrade Phase I scenario Simulation results Continuation Conclusion

24/01/08 Energy deposition, LIUWG, Elena Wildner 3 Work on the nominal insertion layout Energy deposition studies independently Fermilab, 2002 & CERN, 2007 (LHC report 633 and LHC note to appear) with MARS and FLUKA In addition comparisons have been made on representative toy model Agreement 5 % in coils 20% in iron Studies so far up to D1

24/01/08 Energy deposition, LIUWG, Elena Wildner 4 Models of baseline IR1 and IR5 Courtesy C. Hoa Liner in Q1 and MCBX of thickness 6.5 mm (stainless steel) Length 31 m Magnet apertures 70 mm Half crossing angle  rad

24/01/08 Energy deposition, LIUWG, Elena Wildner 5 Heat load along the triplet, “nominal” To limit the peaks in the superconducting coils: our first objective Luminosity= L0 (1 *10 34 cm -2 s -1 ) Q1 Q2a Q2b Q3 Courtesy C. Hoa Recommended limit

24/01/08 Energy deposition, LIUWG, Elena Wildner 6 The scoring Cable  We make the binning for the scoring so that it corresponds to a minimum volume of equilibrium for the heat transport (cable transverse dimensions, with a length corresponding to the twist pitch of the cable) Total power deposited in the magnets  Important to know the volume of the magnet (the model has to be realistic) The power deposited per meter of magnet  Azimuthal integration of the power in the longitudinal bins Important for results to know how this is calculated and choose correct bin size!!! Length (L) 10 cm (twist pitch) Transverse area of cable (A) Scoring volume: A*L

24/01/08 Energy deposition, LIUWG, Elena Wildner 7 Effect of Magnetic Field, nominal IR5

24/01/08 Energy deposition, LIUWG, Elena Wildner 8 Effect of the TAS Q1, no TAS Q1, TAS 40 mm aperture ”Symmetric” upgrade layout

24/01/08 Energy deposition, LIUWG, Elena Wildner 9 Effect of Crossing Angle, nominal IR5 Total Peaks

24/01/08 Energy deposition, LIUWG, Elena Wildner 10 Basic considerations (summary) Beam Pipe  The beam pipe between magnets shields the front face of the downstream magnet  The experimental vacuum chamber before the TAS has to be properly integrated  We do not include the experimental vacuum chamber before the TAS in our calculations yet TAS  The TAS protects essentially the first quadrupole Magnetic field  The magnetic field is driving the deposited energy Mask  A mask outside the magnet aperture does not affect the energy deposited in the cable Crossing angle  The effect of the crossing angle is smaller than 20%

24/01/08 Energy deposition, LIUWG, Elena Wildner 11 The layout, Phase I 9.40m7.80m 9.40m 41 m 130mm Q1 Q2a Q2b Q3 “Symmetric” IP1 Positive particle + FDDF TAS MagnetMQXC Configuration“Symmetric” Gradient [T/m]120 Aperture [mm]130 Peak Field [T]8.7 Layers2 LHC Project Report 1000: “A Solution for Phase- one Upgrade of the LHC Low-beta Quadrupoles Based on Nb-Ti”, J. P. Koutchouk, L. Rossi, E. Todesco For comparison: “Nominal” (L=L0) layout is about 30 m long. Half crossing angle: 220  rad, vertical

24/01/08 Energy deposition, LIUWG, Elena Wildner 12 The Magnet/Field Model Courtesy: F. Borgnolutti 4 X MQXC 130 mm Aperture 270 mm Cold Mass outer diameter 570 mm

24/01/08 Energy deposition, LIUWG, Elena Wildner 13 The magnet ends The magnets have in this first study the same length as the magnetic length: mechanical length = magnetic length No coil ends are modeled (the same transverse layout over the whole magnet) No 3D field or hard edge approximation

24/01/08 Energy deposition, LIUWG, Elena Wildner 14 Beam pipe dimensioning Relation thickness (t) and diameter (D), valid for stainless steel: t = D Example for 130 mm aperture quads ( 3.5 mm is the gap between coil and beam tube): OD = 130 mm mm = mm Thickness of beam pipe according to formula: t= 3.45 mm ID = mm – 2*3.45 mm = mm

24/01/08 Energy deposition, LIUWG, Elena Wildner 15 “Baseline”or “reference” case, no shielding Minimum thicknesses for mechanical considerations: Beam-Pipe 3.45 mm Beam-Screen 2 mm Ref. value for max energy deposition 4.3 mW/cm 3 Continuous beam-screen and pipe, no experimental vacuum pipes Q1 Q2a Q2b Q3 Peak in coils Luminosity = 2.5 L0

24/01/08 Energy deposition, LIUWG, Elena Wildner 16 Azimuthal heat deposition pattern, Q2a  = 180/16

24/01/08 Energy deposition, LIUWG, Elena Wildner 17 Beam-screen, case 3mm W-liner 108.2/2 OD = mm – 2 * 0.7 mm – 2 * 3 mm = mm ID = OD – 2 * 2 mm = mm Necessary Gap Liner Beam-Screen thickness /2 Additional restriction on vertical aperture

24/01/08 Energy deposition, LIUWG, Elena Wildner 18 Liner dimensioning Space CBT-BS [mm]0.7 Coil Aperture [mm]130 CBT Outer Diameter [mm]126.5 CBT thickness [mm]3.45 CBT Inner Diameter [mm]119.6 BS Outer Diameter [mm]112.2 BS Inner Diameter [mm]108.2 BS thickness [mm]2.0 Capillary Outer Diameter [mm]4.76 h max [mm] w [mm]11.1 S [mm]1.1 Liner thickness [mm]3.0 Width of liner [mm]17.44 h max = D i,CBT - 2*0.7-2* *2.0 -2*s= D i,CBT *s D i,BS = D i,CBT - 2*0.7-2*2.0 – 2*3.0= D i,CBT – 11.4 s= (D i,CBT / /2-0.7)(1-Cos[  ]) w= (D i,CBT / /2-0.7)(Sin[  ]) Width of liner: w - outer radius of Capillary = 22.2 mm mm  s w Liner Old Capillary Position Beam-pipe and beam-screen as thin as mechanically possible! Magnet aperture 130 mm same in all 4 magnets.

24/01/08 Energy deposition, LIUWG, Elena Wildner 19 Adding a liner along the Triplet Continuous beam-screen and pipe, liner also between magnets Recommendation: 3 mm W shield up to Q2

24/01/08 Energy deposition, LIUWG, Elena Wildner 20 Liner not covering entirely gap Q1-Q2 Liner 3mm W No shielding, only BS and BP Gap

24/01/08 Energy deposition, LIUWG, Elena Wildner 21 Liner not covering entirely gap Q1-Q2 Shielding like for “nominal”: Peak due to 1.5 m “gap” Shield needed between magnets

24/01/08 Energy deposition, LIUWG, Elena Wildner 22 Between the Q1 and the Q2 magnets 1.4 cm stainless steel (checked case) Critical region, must be shielded: 1.Coil end 2.BPM aperture Nominal Layout

24/01/08 Energy deposition, LIUWG, Elena Wildner 23 TAS opening The TAS opening in the simulations is 55 mm (R. Ostojic, S. Fartoukh)

24/01/08 Energy deposition, LIUWG, Elena Wildner 24 TAS, lateral and backwards scattering Normalization (L upgrade = 2.5 L 0 )

24/01/08 Energy deposition, LIUWG, Elena Wildner 25 TAS, mechanical considerations Luminosity: cm -2 s -1 TAS aperture: 55 cm Total power in TAS: 300 W Peak: 131 mW/cm 3 ± 7% Fluka - > Ansys

24/01/08 Energy deposition, LIUWG, Elena Wildner 26 Continuation Choice of pipe sizes and absorbers for next iterations Model of the region between Q1 and Q2a to be refined 3D field of coil ends, mechanical lengths Corrector magnets to be implemented Including D1, TAN, D2 and Q4 Detailed experimental pipes also before TAS Detailed study on the beam particle distributions at the collisions Ions

24/01/08 Energy deposition, LIUWG, Elena Wildner 27 Conclusion 1. The beam-pipe and the beam-screen thicknesses are enlarged (aperture increase): decreases energy deposition in coils! 2. For good coil protection, we propose to add a 3 mm tungsten sheet (or equivalent) around the beam screen up to the entry of the second quadrupole. 3. We need to design detailed shielding in the region close to the beam-pipe between Q1 and Q2a, according to point 2 above (BPM, RF-conncetion, interconnects…)

24/01/08 Energy deposition, LIUWG, Elena Wildner 28 Thanks to R. Ostojic V. Baglin S. Fartoukh M. Karppinen S. Sgobba L. Tavian  And others… Alessio Mereghetti Joined team from 01/01/2008

24/01/08 Energy deposition, LIUWG, Elena Wildner 29 Comparison, smaller aperture TAS The effect of 3 mm SS between magnets is important for peak in second quad The smaller TAS aperture shields better the entrance of the first quad