1 PAST ESTIMATIONS ON THE ROLE OF PASSIVE ABSORBERS Francesco Cerutti for the team 2012 June 4th.

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

Results of dosimeter readings in IR3 and IR7 DGS-RP High Level Dosimetry LHC Collimation WG meeting 03/09/2012.
Collimation with retracted TCSGs R. Bruce, R. Kwee, S. Redaelli.
Combined cleaning in IR3 - MD results and simulations Adriana Rossi R.W.Assmann, R. Bruce, F. Burkart, M. Cauchi, D. Deboy, L. Lari, S. Redaelli, G. Valentino,
FLUKA studies: channeled ions on LHC IP7 L. Lari (CERN & IFIC (CSIC-UV)) D. Mirarchi (CERN & ICL) A. Lechner (CERN) ColUSM#32 December the 6 th,
Critical beam losses during Commissioning & Initial Operation Guillaume Robert-Demolaize (CERN and Univ. Joseph Fourier, Grenoble) with R. Assmann, S.
BLM thresholds for MQW magnets V. Raginel, B. Auchmann, D. Wollmann BLM Threshold Working Group meeting, 24/02/2015.
Loss maps of RHIC Guillaume Robert-Demolaize, BNL CERN-GSI Meeting on Collective Effects, 2-3 October 2007 Beam losses, halo generation, and Collimation.
MBW-MQW Some initial considerations on expected life and available options Presented by P. Fessia Fluka analysis: Francesco Cerutti, Anton Lechner, Eleftherios.
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,
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.
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)
Preparation of Review R. Assmann et al CWG, CWG R. Assmann.
Updates on FLUKA simulations of TCDQ halo loads at IR6 FLUKA team & B. Goddard LHC Collimation Working Group March 5 th, 2007.
Simulations of TCT beam impacts for different scenarios R. Bruce, E. Quaranta, S. RedaelliAcknowledgement: L. Lari, C. Bracco, B. Goddard.
Dose Measurements S. Roesler (DGS-RP) Collimation WG – IR3 passive absorbers 4 June 2012.
Collimator and beamline heating External Review of the LHC Collimation Project CERN Wed 30/6/2004.
LHC Crystal MD 22/09/2015 – LSWG #7 R. Rossi for the LHC Collimation team and the UA9 Collaboration.
1 CONSIDERATIONS ON WARM MAGNET MEASURED DOSES 2012 September 3rd Francesco Cerutti for the team key contributions by TE-MSCDavide Tommasini and Pierre.
1 Question to the 50GeV group 3GeV からの 54π と 81π 、 6.1π の関係 fast extraction 部の acceptance (81π?) Comments on neutrino beamline optics?
Simulation comparisons to BLM data E.Skordis On behalf of the FLUKA team Tracking for Collimation Workshop 30/10/2015 E. Skordis1.
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.
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.
Shielding the 140 mm option F. Cerutti, L.S. Esposito on behalf of CERN FLUKA team.
Schematics for simplified energy deposition study in IR7 R. Assmann.
R. Assmann, June 2009 Operational Experience with the LHC Collimation System R. Assmann, CERN 8/6/2009 for the Collimation Project Team Visit TU Munich.
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.
The HiLumi LHC Design Study (a sub-system of HL-LHC) is co-funded by the European Commission within the Framework Programme 7 Capacities Specific Programme,
1 CAN WE KEEP THE CURRENT SYSTEM FOR LIU BEAMS ? Francesco Cerutti, Alessio Mereghetti, Joao Saraiva LIU-SPS Beam Scraping System Review 2013 Jan 22 contributions.
Energy deposition with and without IR3 upgrade Predicted energy deposition with and without IR3 (IR7)dispersion suppressor collimators. Gain from collimators.
Overview of FLUKA Energy Deposition and Design Studies for the LHC Overview of FLUKA Energy Deposition and Design Studies for the LHC M. Brugger, F. Cerutti,
ENERGY DEPOSITION AND TAS DIAMETER
R.W. Assmann, V. Boccone, F. Cerutti, M. Huhtinen, A. Mereghetti
TCT BLM response from tertiary halo at 6.5 TeV
BEAM LOSS MONITORING SYSTEM
On behalf of the FLUKA team
Bending crystals for magnetic and electric dipole moment measurements
Tracking simulations of protons quench test
S. Roesler (on behalf of DGS-RP)
Joint Meeting SPS Upgrade Study Group and SPS Task Force
Update on loss maps for input to energy deposition studies
TI8/WIC Incident & UJ87/UA87 Radiation Levels & Analysis
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
IP7 losses scaling and impact on forecast for HL-LHC era
Energy deposition studies in IR7 for HL-LHC
LHC at 7 TeV/c: comparison phase 1 / IR3MBC
BEAM LOSS MONITORING SYSTEM
WP3 meeting Aug 21, 2015 V1.1 RECAP Francesco Cerutti.
Beam collimation for SPPC
Status of energy deposition studies in IR3
Interpretation and use of BLM Data
CERN, Geneva, Switzerland PAC 2003 – Portland, Oregon, USA
The 4th International Particle Accelerator Conference, IPAC13
LHC Collimation Requirements
Optic design and performance evaluation for SPPC collimation systems
Beam halo and beam losses in IR1 and IR5
1st HiLumi LHC / LARP Collaboration Meeting 2011 Nov 17th
Beam Loss Simulations LHC
Status of energy deposition studies IR7
Warm Magnet Thresholds
Efficiency of Two-Stage Collimation System
Tertiary Collimators in IP1/IP5: Progress Report
FLUKA Energy deposition simulations for quench tests
Collimator Efficiency Study
MD Planning Fri – Sat (1. – 2.7.)
LHC collimation review follow-up Impedance with IR3MBC option & comparison with phase 1 tight settings N. Mounet, B. Salvant and E. Métral Acknowledgements:
A. Tsinganis, F. Cerutti (EN/STI/FDA)
Presentation transcript:

1 PAST ESTIMATIONS ON THE ROLE OF PASSIVE ABSORBERS Francesco Cerutti for the team 2012 June 4th

2012 June 4th F. Cerutti CWG#142 2 warm magnets and passive absorbers IR7 betatron cleaning IR3 combined cleaning considerations for IR3 momentum cleaning OUTLINE

2012 June 4th F. Cerutti CWG#142 3 IP7 TCP.D C B 6L7.B1 v h s s MBW MQW TCAPA beam 1

2012 June 4th F. Cerutti CWG#142 4 [M. Karppinen quoted by M. for the MQW IN IR7

2012 June 4th F. Cerutti CWG#142 5 IR7 BETATRON CLEANING F. for intermediate collimator settings BEAM PIPE HEATING beam 1 horizontal halo COIL DETERIORATION for lost protons per beam peak dose TCAPA B C with 3 passive absorbers per beam

2012 June 4th F. Cerutti CWG#142 6 IR7 BETATRON CLEANING actual layoutwith metallic collimator elementpeak [MGy] stat. err. [%] peak [MGy] stat. err. [%] MQWA.E5L MQWA.D5L SLAC prototype [L. Lari] with an additional metallic collimator for lost protons per beam at 7 TeV (beam 1 horizontal halo) F. Cerutti Conceptual Design Review Phase II Collimation April 2009

2012 June 4th F. Cerutti CWG#142 h v h v with 1 passive absorber per beam and additional vertical collimators 7 IR3 COMBINED CLEANING M. Mauri R2E Meeting July 17th 2008 for lost protons per beam at 7 TeV (beam 1 horizontal halo) beam 1

2012 June 4th F. Cerutti CWG#142 8 IR3 COMBINED CLEANING TCP. 6 MBW.C B A 6TCAPA MQWA.E D 5 TCAPC TCAPB MQWA.C5 IP3 TCSG. 5 v h v h with two additional passive absorbers per beam: L. Lari CERN-ATS (IPAC 2011) peak dose [MGy]no additional TCAPswith additional TCAPs element\beam energy7 TeV3.5 TeV7 TeV3.5 TeV MQWA.E5L MQWA.D5L MQWA.C5L for lost protons per beam (beam 1 vertical halo) high peak also on MQWA.E4R3, just downstream of a pair of (h-v) collimators

2012 June 4th F. Cerutti CWG#142 9 how many losses? [see Mike’s talk] Over 2011, the TCP BLM in P3 gives almost a factor of 2 difference between beam 1 and beam 2 Looking at the P3/P7 sharing, wrt to the first TCP BLM in P7 (vertical collimator quite doubtful assumption), one gets a factor of 3.5 for beam 1 and a factor of 1.15 for beam 2 FLUKA geometry of IR3 rapidly available, thanks to the new FLUKA Element DataBase and LineBuilder which loss maps? (and corresponding collimator settings) readings of passive dosimeters installed 4 months ago in the locations suggested on purpose (attached to the beam pipe and the MBW external coils, being not accessible the concerned internal MQW coils), are expected to provide during LS1 relevant data and related benchmarking opportunities IR3 MOMENTUM CLEANING [data kindly extracted by P. Mala and M. Calviani]

2012 June 4th F. Cerutti CWG# CONCLUSIONS Guessed peak dose values in the MQWA.E-C5 L3.B1/R3.B2 (and possibly MQWA.E4 R3.B1/L3.B2) are not reassuring Dedicated shower calculations for the standard IR3 momentum cleaning scenario were not performed, and can in principle – after clarifying loss maps and normalization assumptions - be launched (manpower shortage will be overcome by the autumn) Dedicated measurements have been put in place (with Pierre Thonet, Davide Tommasini, Julia Trummer) and dosimeter reading could be carried out at LS1 The activation of the area (see Stefan’s talk) challenges a late TCAP installation