Status of halo excitation studies at CERN R. Bruce, D. Banfi, M. Buzio, J. Barranco, O. Bruning, X. Buffat, R. Chritin, R. de Maria, M. Fitterer, M. Giovannozzi,

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Simulation priorities for 2015 R. Bruce for task 5.2.
Advertisements

Beam commissioning strategy Global machine checkout Essential 450 GeV commissioning System/beam commissioning Machine protection commissioning.
1 Analysis of MD on IR1 and IR5 aperture at 3.5 TeV – progress report C. Alabau Pons, R. Assmann, R. Bruce, M. Giovannozzi, G. Müller, S. Redaelli F. Schmidt,
Day ● 09:00-14:00: Collimation setup 3.5 TeV – Slowed down by losses induced by tune hump. – 48 collimators set up. – Beam dumped by ATLAS during.
Lot’s of time lost due to cryo problem in IR8. Major impact, therefore review of MD program… Start discussion here, please let us know your input. Will.
* IP5 IP1 IP2 IP8 vertical crossing angle at IP8 R. Bruce, W. Herr, B. Holzer Acknowledgement: S. Fartoukh, M. Giovannozzi, S. Redaelli, J. Wenninger.
Loss maps of RHIC Guillaume Robert-Demolaize, BNL CERN-GSI Meeting on Collective Effects, 2-3 October 2007 Beam losses, halo generation, and Collimation.
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.
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,
W. LHC Studies WG Day Review MDs Transverse Damper from Run1 to Run2 reported by W. Hofle for ADT & friends LHC MSWG Special Meeting.
Off-momentum tail scraping for passive abort gap cleaning (MD 444) D. Mirarchi, R. Bruce, S. Redaelli On behalf of the LHC Collimation Team LHC Study Working.
Hollow Electron Lens Update
October 4-5, Electron Lens Beam Physics Overview Yun Luo for RHIC e-lens team October 4-5, 2010 Electron Lens.
LHC Studies Working Group – 03 July 2012 Beam Scraping and Diffusion + Asynchronous Dump MD G. Valentino, R. W. Assmann, F. Burkart, L. Lari, S. Redaelli,
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.
Nominal intensity bunches ● First ramp with nominal intensity bunches suffered from an instability appearing around 1.8 TeV. ● Nominal intensity bunches.
1 CC & MP - CC10 - CERN Crab LHC J. Wenninger CERN Beams Department for the LHC Machine Protection Panel.
Flat-beam IR optics José L. Abelleira, PhD candidate EPFL, CERN BE-ABP Supervised by F. Zimmermann, CERN Beams dep. Thanks to: O.Domínguez. S Russenchuck,
● 08h00: Adjust mode for end-of-fill study. Scraping test for determining transverse beam profile (beam 2, vertical). As expected, beam dumped with BLM.
LHC Progress Thursday 29 th October 2015 Coordination Week 44: Massimo Giovannozzi, Wolfgang Hofle, Jorg Wenninger.
Beam-beam compensation at RHIC LARP Proposal Tanaji Sen, Wolfram Fischer Thanks to Jean-Pierre Koutchouk, Frank Zimmermann.
Beam Induced Quench Session 2: quench test at LHC B. Dehning, C. Bracco.
Draft MD Planning Thu (3.11.) DayTimeMDMP Thu05:00 Ramp down, cycle 07: GeV: Injection stability and losses – check steering constraints, define.
Beam-Beam head-on Limit J. Barranco, X. Buffat, T. Pieloni, C. Tambasco, J. Qiang, K. Ohmi, M. Crouch for the Beam-Beam team BI BSRT Team George and Enrico.
Β*-dependence on collimation R. Bruce, R.W. Assmann C. Alabau Pons, F. Burkart, M. Cauchi, D. Deboy, M. Giovannozzi, W. Herr, L. Lari, G. Muller, S. Redaelli,
Cryo back at 17:30 Beam back at 19:00 IR2 aperture until ~03:00 Since then no beam from the SPS:  Connector problem on MKD  Connector eroded, needs to.
Beam-beam Simulation at eRHIC Yue Hao Collider-Accelerator Department Brookhaven National Laboratory July 29, 2010 EIC Meeting at The Catholic University.
Progress with Beam Report to LMC, Machine Coordination W10: Mike Lamont – Ralph Assmann Thanks to other machine coordinators, EIC’s, operators,
Pushing the space charge limit in the CERN LHC injectors H. Bartosik for the CERN space charge team with contributions from S. Gilardoni, A. Huschauer,
04h36: Cryo problem in arc 81. Access. 09h14: Injection.  TI8 injection collimator setup.  Testing new sequence.  New version of vacuum application.
Thursday 27 th October 00:57 fill 2257 dumped during squeeze (RQTF.A67B1) 03:52 stable beams fill #2258 4:33 Dumped, problem of LBDS dilution kicker power.
LHC Commissioning Status Gianluigi Arduini CERN – AB Department For… 23/10/20081LHC Commissioning Status - G. Arduini.
Crossing Schemes Considerations and Beam-Beam Work plan T. Pieloni, J. Barranco, X. Buffat, W. Herr.
Reminder of upcoming milestones For all machines: Nov. 2012:Table of performance parameters Jan. 2013: Baseline activities defined Feb. 2013: Update APT/EVM.
MTE commissioning status S. Gilardoni, BE/ABP With C. Hernalsteens and M. Giovannozzi.
Collimation Aspects for Crab Cavities? R. Assmann, CERN Thanks to Daniel Wollmann for presenting this talk on my behalf (criticism and complaints please.
Benchmarking Headtail with e-cloud observations with LHC 25ns beam H. Bartosik, W. Höfle, G. Iadarola, Y. Papaphilippou, G. Rumolo.
RF Commissioning D. Jacquet and M. Gruwé. November 8 th 2007D. Jacquet and M. Gruwé2 RF systems in a few words (I) A transverse dampers system ACCELERATING.
Ralph Assmann, Giulia Papotti, Frank Zimmermann 25 August 2011
Wire tests at injection energy
MD Planning Fri – Sat (26. – 27.8.)
Tracking simulations of protons quench test
Transverse Damping Requirements
Cryo Problem MD Planning Tue (1.11.) C B Day Time MD MP Tue 01:00
Potential failure scenarios that can lead to very fast orbit changes and machine protection requirements for HL-LHC operation Daniel Wollmann with input.
Saturday 24 March 2012.
Wire, flat beams and beam-beam MDs in 2017
MD2036: UFO dynamics studies and UFO fast detection
HIGHLIGHTS OF LAST MONTHS OF HSS ACTIVITIES
Saturday 21st April 00:33 Interlock during ramp on BLM HV
Summary Friday h38: Ramp down and pre-cycle.
Monday h00: Ramp 10 A/s (chromaticity, crossing angle non-closure, beta-beating): At 7m and 3.5m, put in one by one crossing angles, calculated.
Fill 1410 revisited Peak luminosity 1.4e32 Beam current 2.68/2.65 e13
Tuesday TOTEM and transverse loss map (1) OK
MD#4 Progress MD Coordinators: Giulia Papotti, Frank Zimmermann
LHC commissioning Week 38
Saturday 7th May Sat – Sun night
Collimation margins and *
Summary Thursday h21: Stable beams fill #1303.
MD#2 News & Plan Tue – Wed (19. – 20.6.)
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:
Optics Measurements in the PSB
LHC Morning Meeting - G. Arduini
Summary Tuesday h23: Machine closed. Precycle started.
Another Immortal Fill….
15/12/2009 Vacuum interlock in sector 78 understood  out-gassing of a Penning gauge ignited as a result of ionization or dust arcing In conclusion: NO.
Feedbacks & Stabilization Getting them going
Powering scheme for Hollow Electron Lens
Daniel, Gianluca and Belen (for the Collimator team)
Presentation transcript:

Status of halo excitation studies at CERN R. Bruce, D. Banfi, M. Buzio, J. Barranco, O. Bruning, X. Buffat, R. Chritin, R. de Maria, M. Fitterer, M. Giovannozzi, W. Höfle, S. Redaelli, T. Pieloni, H. Thiesen, CERN G. Stancari, A. Valishev, Fermilab R. Bruce,

Halo removal Halo depletion is a possible way to mitigate spurious beam dumps at fast orbit oscillations When do we need it in the operational cycle? – Most important during the squeeze and collision preparation, before beams are brought into collision (Run 1). Application to stable beams for increased protection during crab cavity failure Possible methods under study for halo removal: – electron lens (studied by G. Stancari et al.) – Tune modulation – Transverse damper (ADT) narrow-band excitation

R. Bruce, Halo removal Timeline: – Nothing available for 2015 startup as operational tool. Hollow electron lens: not before LS2. What can we do before? This talk: Brief introduction to the alternatives to electron lens Ongoing and planned studies

R. Bruce, Tune modulation Idea: By modulating tunes at a fixed frequency, resonance sidebands are introduced around the existing resonance lines (Bruning, Willeke PRL 76:3719) Use detuning with amplitude of the beam With right modulation frequency: could put a resonance line on the halo, while leaving the beam core unaffected Some uncertainties on how to use present LHC hardware – Under investigation – see later

R. Bruce, ADT excitation Instead of modulating the tune with a quadrupole, we could use the transverse damper (electric field kicker) to make a narrow-band excitation Rely on detuning with amplitude. Simplest approach: Knowing the fractional tune of the halo Q h apply kick in resonance at frequency More advanced ideas: colored noise to excite selectively only some amplitudes Hardware-wise, no modifications needed

R. Bruce, Alternative methods Both tune modulation and ADT excitation relies on – Detuning with amplitude – Good knowledge, stability, and reproducibility of the tune in the machine Theoretical validation – Both concepts to be validated in simulation studies – Allows also to fine-tune parameters – Ongoing work

R. Bruce, Tune footprints and resonances Showing tune footprints for different bunches Resonance lines shown up to 5 th order Introducing a tune modulation Studying the resonance lines when modulation frequency is increased Thanks to the beam-beam team for help and input!

R. Bruce, Tune footprints and resonance lines – all footprints, 5 th order Thanks to the beam-beam team for help and input!

R. Bruce, Tune footprints and resonance lines – all footprints, 5 th order Zoom on collision tunes – separated and colliding beams, 6.5 TeV, b*=55cm HO IP1/5/8 LR IP1/5 one side only HO IP8 No HO

R. Bruce, Needed frequency Depending on tune, which tune footprint we want to hit, and which resonance we want to use: big spread of possible frequencies Hz – different bunches have different footprints depending on where they collide. Need to be careful... when hitting the halo in some bunches, we risk to hit the core in others!

R. Bruce, LHC hardware for tune modulation Cold magnets: risk for problems with quench protection system Most suitable magnets in the LHC: warm trim quadrupoles MQWB in IR3/7. 8 units installed Measurements carried out to verify power converter capabilities – Applying modulation to 4 magnets in IR7 in parallel

R. Bruce, Power converter measurements Data at max achieved amplitude for different frequencies Thanks to H. Thiesen

R. Bruce, Synchronization Signals by default not synchronized, but could be using timing

R. Bruce, Max achieved amplitudes Saturation of power converter limits the achievable amplitude Previous guess (O. Bruning, H. Schmickler in 2013 collimation review): dQ of 1e-4 needed – If no other damping, we would have sufficient current at injection, but not at 7 TeV – Needed amplitude to be confirmed by ongoing FMA simulations Preliminary

R. Bruce, Magnetic measurements So far discussed only power converter Risk for additional loss in amplitude due to attenuation in magnet and vacuum chamber Ongoing activity to set up magnetic measurements with full magnet to measure transfer function (collaboration with M. Buzio, R. Chritin et al.) Measurements of power converters combined with transfer function through magnet and beam screen should give hardware limits

R. Bruce, For discussion: Ideas for beam tests for 2015 We could aim at some first tests in 2015 with both tune modulation and ADT Start simple: Injection energy – easy re-fill if beam is lost - not unlikely to hit also the core during trials – Larger available tune amplitudes for tune modulation with MQWB Ideal measurement procedure – Estimate population in halo and core – Apply halo cleaning – Estimate population in halo and core – Re-populate halo – Repeat…

R. Bruce, For discussion: Measurement challenges Estimation of halo population – LHC instrumentation for profile measurements has insufficient resolution – Possible method: BLM signals during collimator scraping Disadvantage: destructive! – Could be used anyway if we have reproducible way to re-populate halo Halo re-population – Best option - smooth ADT blowup? Disadvantage: blows up also the core. To what level is the halo population reproducible in repeated (distructive) measurements? – Alternative: Re-injecting fresh bunches? Checking that halo cleaning does not affect core – Need to disentangle core blowup from halo repopulation and halo cleaning

R. Bruce, Pros and cons Tune modulation affects in the LHC both beams and planes simultaneously due to the powering of the magnets ADT can act on a single beam and plane, even on single bunch ADT and tune modulation: need good knowledge of tune and detuning with amplitude. Risk to hit the core ADT and tune modulation rely on existing hardware Hollow e-lens – completely independent on the tune. Acts only on particle amplitude – Can act on individual trains but not bunches – New hardware needed. Not available in LHC until Run 3

R. Bruce, Summary Tune modulation and ADT narrow-band excitation are alternatives to hollow e-lens for halo excitation – Using existing hardware ADT: existing hardware should be sufficient Tune modulation: Ongoing measurement campaign on MQWB warm quadrupoles – Several magnets can be used synchronized Hope for first LHC measurements to show effect in 2015 – Several challenges to be carefully thought about Ongoing simulation studies for validation of parameters