2 nd BLMTWG meeting, 26.06.2014 B. Auchmann, O. Picha, with A. Lechner.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
EXTRACTION BEAM LOSS AT 1 TEV CM WITH TDR PARAMETERS Y. Nosochkov, G. White August 25, 2014.
Advertisements

DS Quench TEST 2  MOTIVATION and METHOD: 1. Achieve 500kW on beam 1 – TCP7 collimators.(so far 500kW with beam 2 and 235kW over 1s with beam 1 were reached.
Critical beam losses during Commissioning & Initial Operation Guillaume Robert-Demolaize (CERN and Univ. Joseph Fourier, Grenoble) with R. Assmann, S.
LHC Commissioning WG 27/03/ Commissioning of BLM system L. Ponce With the contribution of B. Dehning, E.B. Holzer, M. Sapinski, C. Zamantzas and.
MPSCWG 12/12/ Operational scenario of the BLM system.
LHC Beam Operation CommitteeJune, 14 th UFOs in the LHC Tobias Baer LBOC June, 14 th 2011 Acknowledgements: N. Garrel, B. Goddard, E.B. Holzer, S.
Collimation MDs LHC Study Working Group Daniel Wollmann for the Collimation-Team, BLM-Team, Impedance-Team, … LHC Study Working Group,
BLM review Mario Santana Leitner OUTLOOK ON FLUKA SIMULATIONS FOR UDULATOR DAMAGE AND BLM RESPONSE Mario Santana Leitner, Alberto.
BLM thresholds for MQW magnets V. Raginel, B. Auchmann, D. Wollmann BLM Threshold Working Group meeting, 24/02/2015.
GRD - Collimation Simulation with SIXTRACK - MIB WG - October 2005 LHC COLLIMATION SYSTEM STUDIES USING SIXTRACK Ralph Assmann, Stefano Redaelli, Guillaume.
LSWG day, Sept. 2, 2014, B. Auchmann for the BLMTWG Collaboration of many teams: OP, RF, BI, Collimation, LIBD, FLUKA, etc. T. Baer, M. Bednarek, G. Bellodi,
An Example Use Case Scenario
BIQ Workshop, September 15 Collaboration of many teams: BLM, Collimation, FLUKA, LIBD, OP, RF, etc. B. Auchmann, T. Baer, M. Bednarek, G. Bellodi, C.
4 th BLMTWG Meeting, January 13, 2015 by B. Auchmann, A. Bertarelli, R. Bruce, F. Cerutti, B. Dehning, L. Esposito, E.B. Holzer, M. Kalliokoski, A. Lechner,
Beam-induced Quench Tests of LHC Magnets Beam-induced Quench Tests of LHC Magnets, B.Dehning 1 B. Auchmann, T. Baer, M. Bednarek, G. Bellodi, C. Bracco,
Ralph Assmann What Do We Want To Measure (in 2009) R. Assmann S. Redaelli, V. Previtali CERN/BE discussed with W. Scandale CERN/EN26/3/2009CC09  See also.
Status of FLUKA Simulations for Collimation BLM Thresholds 6 th BLM Threshold Working Group 10/02/2015 E.Skordis On behalf of the FLUKA team Sixtrack input.
Beam Background Simulations for HL-LHC at IR1 Regina Kwee-Hinzmann, R.Bruce, A.Lechner, N.V.Shetty, L.S.Esposito, F.Cerutti, G.Bregliozzi, R.Kersevan,
6 th QTAWG meeting, March 28, Overview 6 tests/events have been analyzed. RegimeMethodCERN namingMagnet typeTemperature shortkick750 µrad kick eventMB1.9.
B. Auchmann, O. Picha, Joint CWG/BLMTWG Meeting August
Bus-Bar Quench Studies Summary of Available Calculations LMC Meeting August 5 th 2009 Bus-Bar Quench Studies Summary of Available Calculations LMC Meeting.
Updates on FLUKA simulations of TCDQ halo loads at IR6 FLUKA team & B. Goddard LHC Collimation Working Group March 5 th, 2007.
Modifications to the Threshold Calculator Application Matti Kalliokoski 15 th BLM Thresholds WG Meeting 26/05/2015.
1 CONSIDERATIONS ON WARM MAGNET MEASURED DOSES 2012 September 3rd Francesco Cerutti for the team key contributions by TE-MSCDavide Tommasini and Pierre.
LHC Beam Loss Monitors, B.Dehning 1/15 LHC Beam loss Monitors Loss monitor specifications Radiation tolerant Electronics Ionisation chamber development.
Simulation comparisons to BLM data E.Skordis On behalf of the FLUKA team Tracking for Collimation Workshop 30/10/2015 E. Skordis1.
AOB: Adjustments to BLM Thresholds in Light of Run-2 Experience with UFOs B. Auchmann, J. Ghini, L. Grob, A. Lechner, D. Wollmann. 118 th MPP,
Eva Barbara Holzer July 16, LHC MPP Eva Barbara Holzer for the BLM team LHC MPP CERN, July 17, 2010 Proposal on Threshold Corrections for RC Filters.
Chamonix 2006, B.Dehning 1 Commissioning of Beam Loss Monitors B. Dehning CERN AB/BDI.
Beam Induced Quench Session 2: quench test at LHC B. Dehning, C. Bracco.
Case study: Energy deposition in superconducting magnets in IR7 AMT Workshop A.Ferrari, M.Magistris, M.Santana, V.Vlachoudis CERN Fri 4/3/2005.
Simulations and BLM Scaling Studies for the Collimation Quench Test (with protons) A. Mereghetti CWG Meeting, CERN, 22 nd Oct 2015.
LHC Machine Operational Status and Plans LHCC, 22nd September 2010 Steve Myers (On behalf of the LHC team and international collaborators)
E.B. Holzer BLM Meeting: Q & A March 20, Questions and Answers.
Benchmarking Headtail with e-cloud observations with LHC 25ns beam H. Bartosik, W. Höfle, G. Iadarola, Y. Papaphilippou, G. Rumolo.
2 nd BLMTWG meeting, B. Auchmann, O. Picha, with A. Lechner.
1 st BLMTWG Meeting, , B. Auchmann, O. Picha with help from M. Sapinski, E.B. Holzer, A. Priebe.
Workshop on Beam Induced Quenches, Sept. 15, 2014
Alignment and beam-based correction
TCT BLM response from tertiary halo at 6.5 TeV
2007 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium (NSS)
BEAM LOSS MONITORING SYSTEM
Tracking simulations of protons quench test
S. Roesler (on behalf of DGS-RP)
Introduction: FCC beam dumping system
macroparticle model predictions
MD2036: UFO dynamics studies and UFO fast detection
Injection region BLMs – ECR
Review of the MQW and MBW lifetime taking into account results from the reading of the dosimeters collecting data in the 2016 RUN Dosimeter (installation,
Fast losses at collimators during 16L2 dumps
Automatic Generation of the Radiation Level Weekly Reports Update 18
Energy deposition studies in IR7 for HL-LHC
MD25 ns - 14/12/2012 G. Arduini, H. Bartosik, G. Iadarola, G. Rumolo
BEAM LOSS MONITORING SYSTEM
Intensity Evolution Estimate for LHC
Interpretation and use of BLM Data
Remote setting of LHC BLM thresholds?
Verification of the Beam Loss studies at start-up
C.Octavio Domínguez, Humberto Maury Cuna
BLM changes HV software interlock (SIS)
Sensitivity tests of BLM_S chamber in PSB dump
Commissioning of BLM system
Week 35 – Technical Stop and Restart
Why do BLMs need to know the Quench Levels?
Warm Magnet Thresholds
Commissioning of the Beam Conditions Monitor of the LHCb Experiment at CERN Ch. Ilgner, October 23, 2008 on behalf of the LHCb BCM group at TU Dortmund:
Operational scenario of the BLM system
CNGS Primary Beam Results 2011
FLUKA Energy deposition simulations for quench tests
Shall we modify BLM Thresholds on Superconducting Magnets?
Presentation transcript:

2 nd BLMTWG meeting, B. Auchmann, O. Picha, with A. Lechner

Assumed BLM signal at quench The assumed signal at quench is composed of three input factors:

Startup strategy Thresholds set for orbit-bump scenario in MQs (largest beta-function). BLM locations based on L. Ponce calculations. BLM thresholds based on C. Kurfürst diploma thesis. Quench levels of Report 44 and D. Bocian studies.

Pre-LS1 adjustments Analysis of initial BIQ events (Note 422). MQ position 1: Kurfürst scenario for BLMResponse and EnergyDeposit. MQ position 2&3: Kurfürst scenario for BLMResponse. Note 422 scenario for EnergyDeposit. Max. BLM signals observed during 5 High-Lumi 3.5 TeV BLM thresholds increased by factor 3 in short running sums. UFO events without quench. BLM thresholds increased by factor of 5 in ms-range. Dynamic orbit-bump QT. BLM thresholds reduced by factor 1/3 in long running sums. These 3 corrections were used for all magnet types.

Pre-LS1 adjustments Slides by M. Sapinski, Chamonix 2011.

Pre LS1 Ad-Hoc Factors

Post LS1 Arc Strategy Proposal The most likely scenario is U.F.O. The orbit bump scenario is extremely unlikely. For long integration times, the detection of a gas leak, albeit unlikely, could be of interest! (Gauges are far apart in the arcs). Therefore we propose to: Discard orbit-bump scenario all together. Use U.F.O. scenario up to RS06 (0.01 s). Use gas-leak scenario for RS07-RS12. (FLUKA simulations running!)

The FLUKA U.F.O. Scenario All data by A. Lechner. Collision of proton with carbon-dust particle.

The FLUKA U.F.O. Scenario Energy deposition for p-C collsion at the beginning of an MB.

Comparison of MQ Position 1 BLM response: very flat scaling with energy. Much less signal at high energies. EnergyDeposit old/new ratio is very large at injection! (No neutral peak.) At high energies new BLMResponse/EnergyDeposit is smaller. At low energies new BLMResponse/EnergyDeposit is a lot larger.

Quench Level In the U.F.O. scenario, all BLMs are protecting MBs! U.F.O. time distribution is usually Gaussian. BLMs would trigger at peak or shortly after. Approximated by linearly rising losses over each RS. This reduces the quench level by ~2. (For the gas-leak scenario the validity of this assumption will depend on the cloud’s diffusion velocity.)

Quench Level QP3 QL for rect. pulse and in MQ is 2x above Bocian!

(Master)Thresholds old vs. new on MQ Position 1. No neutral peak at injection Lower BLM signal at high energies. Correction x3 necessary for High-Lumi losses. UFO time range: quench test suggests QP3 underestimates the level by x3-5 Electronic maximum Gas-leak scenario data missing!

New Thresholds MQ Position 3 BLM signal only available at 7 TeV Pos. 3 was a mix of Kurfürst BLMResponse and Note 422 EnergyDeposit! Beam-gas data missing, noise-level correction may be necessary.

New Thresholds MB

Necessary Corrections Redo analysis of High-Lumi losses; increase thresholds in RS where necessary. U.F.O. time range: factor x 3-5 for QP3 underestimation. Introduce beam-gas scenario (prepare database for 2 nd scenario). Long RSs: Avoid problems with noise. Cross-check with collimation loss maps, extrapolated to 500 kW. Monitor Factor: Default 0.3 should correspond to predicted quench level, i.e., Master Threshold is 3x above expected signal at quench.

DS and SS strategy Use U.F.O. scenario up to RS06 (0.01 s). Use gas-leak scenario for RS07-RS12. Compute accurate quench levels For all magnet types (in particular potted MQT magnets). For the correct operation temperatures. Correct thresholds upwards if indicated by collimation loss-maps extrapolated to 500 kW for MF 1 in the concerned families.

Beyond Cryo-Magnets in Arc, DS, SS Collimator BLMs: Joint CWG, BLMTWG meeting in Aug. 14. Review of threshold corrections since Review of family compositions. Review and update of Ralph’s tables of maximum proton loss rates. Review and update of the BLM signal / lost proton models. IT BLMs, first step: Review of initial scenario and corrections since Warm magnets, first step: Review max. allowable proton loss rates and corresponding BLM signals. LIBD, first step: Contact responsible team.

Summary BLM thresholds for the protection of cryo magnets in arc, DS, and SS will be based on entirely new U.F.O. and beam-gas scenarios. No more orbit bump. Corrections to allow for High-Lumi losses for U.F.O. time-scale to avoid noise levels to allow for 200 (500) kW losses on primary collimators. Further steps needed in coming months to review all BLM families around the ring!