Update on HI beams study Magdalena Kowalska supervised by Elena Benedetto BE/ABP/HSC 16 September 2015.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Beam-Beam Effects for FCC-ee at Different Energies: at Different Energies: Crab Waist vs. Head-on Dmitry Shatilov BINP, Novosibirsk FCC-ee/TLEP physics.
Advertisements

Alexandr Drozhdin March 16, 2005 MI-10 Injection.
Investigations of Unidentified Lying Objects in the LHC D. Mirarchi, R. Bruce, P. Hermes, S. Redaelli, B. Salvachua, G. Valentino On behalf of the LHC.
Longitudinal motion: The basic synchrotron equations. What is Transition ? RF systems. Motion of low & high energy particles. Acceleration. What are Adiabatic.
SPEAR3 Chicane, Accelerator Physics Update, February 10, 2005 Electron optics design review August 11, 2004 –“… no show stoppers. However, …” Additional.
Space Charge meeting – CERN – 09/10/2014
SPS aperture measurements MSWG 26/03/2013 Stéphane Cettour Cavé.
E.Benedetto, 30/05/13, LIU-PSB Meeting, PSB chicane magnets: Inconel chamber PSB H- chicane magnets: Inconel vacuum chamber option & consequences on beam.
E. Benedetto SC meeting 19/3/15 Update on the LIU curve emittance vs. intensity.
Linac4 Beam Commissioning Committee PSB Beam Optics and Painting Schemes 9 th December 2010 Beam Optics and Painting Schemes C. Bracco, C. Carli, B. Goddard,
Loss maps of RHIC Guillaume Robert-Demolaize, BNL CERN-GSI Meeting on Collective Effects, 2-3 October 2007 Beam losses, halo generation, and Collimation.
Review on PSB 160 MeV H- Injection Nov 9-10, 2011 Closeout by P. Cruikshank, M. Giovannozzi, D. Johnson, B. Jones, B. Pine, M. Plum, D. Tommasini.
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.
Simulation of direct space charge in Booster by using MAD program Y.Alexahin, N.Kazarinov.
Eric Prebys, FNAL.  Let’s look at the Hill’ equation again…  We can write the general solution as a linear combination of a “sine-like” and “cosine-like”
AB-ABP/LHC Injector Synchrotrons Section CERN, Giovanni Rumolo 1 Final results of the E-Cloud Instability MDs at the SPS (26 and 55 GeV/c) G.
H. Bartosik, K. Cornelis, A. Guerrero, B. Mikulek, G. Rumolo, Y. Papaphilippou, B. Salvant, E. Shaposhnikova June 16 th, 2011.
PS Booster Studies with High Intensity Beams Magdalena Kowalska supervised by Elena Benedetto Space Charge Collaboration Meeting May 2014.
Elias Métral, APC meeting, 02/02/2006 1/35 E. Métral, G. Arduini and G. Rumolo u Observations of fast instabilities in the SPS (1988 and 2002/3) and PS.
Details of space charge calculations for J-PARC rings.
October 4-5, Electron Lens Beam Physics Overview Yun Luo for RHIC e-lens team October 4-5, 2010 Electron Lens.
Suprathermal Tails in Solar Wind Oxygen and Iron Mark Popecki University of New Hampshire STEREO SWG 11/2007.
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,
Defined shape Defined volume Fixed Particles tightly packed Particles vibrate in their places Defined volume Takes the shape of the container Particles.
H - injection simulations 13th October 2014 Jose L. Abelleira, Chiara Bracco.
“Beam Losses” Christian Carli PSB H - Injection Review, 9 th November 2011 Several topics more or less related to beam losses, a study still somewhat at.
Status of PSB Impedance calculations: Inconel undulated chambers C. Zannini, G. Rumolo, B. Salvant Thanks to: E. Benedetto, J. Borburgh.
Specifications for PSB Injection System Upgrade C. Bracco, J. Abelleira on behalf of BTP Acknowledgments: E. Benedetto, C. Carli, V. Dimov, L.M. Feliciano,
Overview of Booster PIP II upgrades and plans C.Y. Tan for Proton Source group PIP II Collaboration Meeting 03 June 2014.
Updates on FLUKA simulations of TCDQ halo loads at IR6 FLUKA team & B. Goddard LHC Collimation Working Group March 5 th, 2007.
Collimator wakefields - G.Kurevlev Manchester 1 Collimator wake-fields Wake fields in collimators General information Types of wake potentials.
Update on injection studies of LHC beams from Linac4 V. Forte (BE/ABP-HSC) Acknowledgements: J. Abelleira, C. Bracco, E. Benedetto, S. Hancock, M. Kowalska.
1 EMMA Tracking Studies Shinji Machida ASTeC/CCLRC/RAL 4 January, ffag/machida_ ppt & pdf.
J-PARC Spin Physics Workshop1 Polarized Proton Acceleration in J-PARC M. Bai Brookhaven National Laboratory.
Simulation on beam loss from radiative Bhabha process Y. Funakoshi KEK.
Elias Métral, LHC Beam Commissioning Working Group meeting, 30/11/2010 /241 PRELIMINARY FINDINGS FROM INSTABILITY MEASUREMENTS DURING THE 75ns AND 50ns.
E.Benedetto, 1/07/13, LIS Meeting, PSB chicane magnets: Inconel chamber PSB H- chicane magnets: Inconel vacuum chamber option & consequences on beam dynamics.
Collimation in the CERN PS Booster Penny Jackson: John Adams Institute/University of Oxford/CERN This is a feasibility study.
PSB-PS TRANSFER AT 2 GEV - CONCEPTS AND OPTICS W. Bartmann, J. Abelleira et al. ABT LIU Review, 20-Nov-15.
PSB H- injection concept J.Borburgh, C.Bracco, C.Carli, B.Goddard, M.Hourican, B.Mikulec, W.Weterings,
Collimator settings for 2012 R. Bruce, R. Assmann for the collimation team
LER Workshop, Oct 11, 2006Intensity Increase in the LER – T. Sen1 LHC Accelerator Research Program bnl-fnal-lbnl-slac  Motivation  Slip stacking in the.
Transverse shaving on the Window Beam Scope in the PSB Magdalena Cieslak - Kowalska BE/ABP/HSI with precious help from E. Benedetto, J-M. de Cravero, B.
Lecture 4 Longitudinal Dynamics I Professor Emmanuel Tsesmelis Directorate Office, CERN Department of Physics, University of Oxford ACAS School for Accelerator.
(Towards a) Luminosity model for LHC and HL-LHC F. Antoniou, M. Hostettler, Y. Papaphilippou, G. Papotti Acknowledgements: Beam-Beam and Luminosity studies.
IBS and Touschek studies for the ion beam at the SPS F. Antoniou, H. Bartosik, Y. Papaphilippou, T. Bohl.
Recycler Injection with Carbon Foils Dave Johnson, Alexandr Drozhdin, Leonid Vorobiev September 8, 2010 Project X Collaboration Meeting.
CLIC Frequency Multiplication System aka Combiner Rings Piotr Skowronski Caterina Biscari Javier Barranco 21 Oct IWLC 2010.
Toward an Improved Model of the Fermilab Booster Synchrotron A. Drozhdin, J.-F. Ostiguy and W. Chou Beam Physics Department Introduction The Booster is.
R.W. Assmann, V. Boccone, F. Cerutti, M. Huhtinen, A. Mereghetti
Y.Papaphilippou Thanks to
Jim Crittenden CHESS Simulation Working Group 30 March 2015
M. Migliorati, C. Vaccarezza INFN - LNF
Saturday 21st April 00:33 Interlock during ramp on BLM HV
Results from crystal H on Beam 2
16L2 aperture measurements
Update on PTC/ORBIT space charge studies in the PSB
CNGS Proton beam line: news since NBI2002 OUTLINE 1. Overview
IMPACT Simulation of the Montague Resonance at PS
Global aperture measurements at 450 GeV with 170 mrad crossing angle
Preliminary results of the PTC/ORBIT convergence studies in the PSB
Beam-Beam Effects in the CEPC
ICFA Mini-Workshop, IHEP, 2017
November 14, 2008 The meeting on RIKEN AVF Cyclotron Upgrade Progress report on activity plan Sergey Vorozhtsov.
Dark current in TESLA linac
Impact of short dipoles on PSB performance (status)
Collimator Efficiency Study
Beam-Beam Effects in High-Energy Colliders:
Monday :00 – 15:00 : Stable beams 15:30 : Recover…
Thursday 22nd March 00:20 – 02:40 on longer squeeze function, orbit and chroma correction at 4 TeV 2:40 – 5:30 second cycle with long squeeze 5:46 – 7:00.
Presentation transcript:

Update on HI beams study Magdalena Kowalska supervised by Elena Benedetto BE/ABP/HSC 16 September 2015

Steps from last meeting: Investigate of the maximum intensity that one can put to stay below emit_vertical = 6 mm mrad (> 1.6 e13 p+). Determine the aperture of the collimator to keep the losses below a certain level.

Intensity evolution while increasing the initial intensity from 1.6 to 2.0 e13 intensitylosses% upgraded WBS1.6e13p % H: mm1.7e13p % V: 22.4 mm1.8e13p % 5 ms in PSB1.9e13p % 1st test2.0e13p % intensitylosses% upgraded WBS1.6e13p % H: mm1.7e13p % V: 22.4 mm1.8e13p % 5 ms in PSB1.9e13p % 2nd test2.0e13p % intensitylosses% upgraded WBS1.6e13p % H: mm1.7e13p % V: 22.4 mm1.8e13p % 5 ms in PSB1.9e13p % build in in flat file2.0e13p % intensitylosses% no WBS1.6e13p % 1.7e13p % 1.8e13p % 5 ms in PSB1.9e13p % 2.0e13p % intensitylosses% upgraded WBS1.6e13p % H: mm1.7e13p % V: 22.4 mm1.8e13p % 15 ms in PSB1.9e13p % 2.0e13p %

Intensity evolution while increasing the initial intensity from 1.6 to 2.0 e13

emit_xincrease in emit_xemit_yincrease in emit_ylosses% of the beam init2.16E E-06 WBS E %9.74E % % 1st test E %9.86E % % E %9.92E % % E %1.01E % % 5 ms22.11E %1.01E % % WBS E %9.74E % % 2nd test E %9.86E % % E %9.92E % % E %1.01E % % 5 ms22.11E %1.01E % % no WBS E %1.02E % % E %1.03E % % E %1.04E % % E %1.07E % % 5 ms22.12E %1.09E % % WBS built in E %9.74E % % E %9.86E % % E %9.93E % % E %1.01E % % 5 ms22.11E %1.01E % % WBS E %9.76E % % E %9.87E % % E %9.87E % % E %9.96E % % 15 ms22.13E %9.95E % %

Emittance evolution while increasing the initial intensity from 1.6 to 2.0 e13 !!! Strange behaviour of horizontal emittance when intensity exceeds 1.8e13p+ -> should we trust calculations?

Emittance evolution while increasing the initial intensity from 1.6 to 2.0 e13

Comments: Horizontal emittance blow up is always the highest for the 1.8e13p+ beam and it goes with the smallest amount of losses. Vertical emittance blow up scale with the intensity however it stays below a certain level due to the aperture restriction in vertical plane. For 15 ms, the increase is 2.25 % and 1.07 % in horizontal and vertical plane respectively, while keeping losses below 6%. The experiment was performed for the WBS with the dimensions +/ mm and +/ mm as it was agreed to be a reference point.

Steps from last meeting: Investigate of the maximum intensity that one can put to stay below emit_vertical = 6 mm mrad (> 1.6 e13 p+). Determine the aperture of the collimator to keep the losses below a certain level.

Aperture of the collimator aperturelosses% 38_vs_38ongoing 37_vs_ % 36_vs_ % 35_vs_ % 34_vs_ % 33_vs_ % 32_vs_ % 31_vs_ % *100_vs_38ongoing *100_vs_ % *100_vs_ % Model: square aperture Losses are not expected to occur in horizontal plane Study of the first 5ms Our loss budget: 5 – 6 % Injection beam loss estimated to be 2.25 % Left: 2.75 – 3.75 %

Contribution of the loss at the collimator to the total loss pattern

Loss pattern (aperture 37 mm vs 37 mm) Almost 60 % of the lost particles are collimated at the absorber. Almost 15 % of the lost particles ends in next 5 m of the lattice at BR.QFO82 or at BR.BHZ82.

Loss pattern (aperture 37 mm vs 37 mm)

Losses (x vs y)

Losses (x vs y), test case black body 31 mm

Losses (x vs y), test case carbon 31 mm

Comments: Horizontal emittance blow up is always the highest for the 1.8e13p+ beam and it goes with the smallest amount of losses. Vertical emittance blow up scale with the intensity however it stays below a certain level due to the aperture restriction in vertical plane. For 15 ms, the increase is 2.25 % and 1.07 % in horizontal and vertical plane respectively, while keeping losses below 6%. From the preliminary results, it looks like a rectangular carbon absorber with an aperture of 38 mm in both planes should keep the losses occurring during the chicane fall below 3%. Similar experiment should be performed for the new design of the WBS.

Simulations for carbon absorber with an aperture of 38 mm are ongoing… … However, they are some results for the absorber with an aperture of 37 mm (I expect to see similar behaviour for 38 mm)

Intensity evolution while increasing the initial intensity from 1.6 to 2.0 e13 “Similarity” to no WBS case -> do we really collimate the HI beam if the losses stay below 3% ?

emit_xincrease in emit_xemit_yincrease in emit_ylosses% of the beam init2.16E E-06 WBS E %9.74E % % 1st test E %9.86E % % E %9.92E % % E %1.01E % % 5 ms22.11E %1.01E % % no WBS E %1.02E % % E %1.03E % % E %1.04E % % E %1.07E % % 5 ms22.12E %1.09E % % new WBS E %9.92E % % H: 37 mm E %1.00E % % V: 37 mm E %1.01E % % E %1.04E % % 5 ms22.11E %1.06E % %

Emittance evolution while increasing the initial intensity from 1.6 to 2.0 e13 !!! Again something strange happens when the intensity goes beyond 1.8e13p+

Emittance evolution while increasing the initial intensity from 1.6 to 2.0 e13 !!! Big vertical emittance blow up. However for the intensity up to 1.8e13p+ it stays below % and seems to converge

Comments: Horizontal emittance blow up is always the highest for the 1.8e13p+ beam and it goes with the smallest amount of losses. Vertical emittance blow up scale with the intensity however it stays below a certain level due to the aperture restriction in vertical plane. For 15 ms, the increase is 2.25 % and 1.07 % in horizontal and vertical plane respectively, while keeping losses below 6%. From the preliminary results, it looks like a rectangular carbon absorber with an aperture of 38 mm in both planes should keep the losses occurring during the chicane fall below 3%. Similar experiment was performed for the new design of the WBS with an aperture of 37 mm.

Comments: Assuming similar behaviour for 38 mm of an aperture of WBS, one can conclude that: The intensity could go up to 1.8e13p+ if PSB can handle an increase of the normalized vertical emittance from 5.96 mm mrad to 6.17 mm mrad (3.56 %). Intensity of 1.6e13p+ will change the vertical emittance by (1.61 %). Study of longer life of the beam inside the machine are needed. Also, once agreed on approximate aperture, one could add the errors to the PSB lattice and see the effect of the perturbed orbit on emittance increase.

Appendix:

Beam evolution after the injection

1 st turn

2 nd turn

3 rd turn

4 th turn

5 th turn

6 th turn

7 th turn

8 th turn

9 th turn

10 th turn

11 th turn

12 th turn

13 th turn

14 th turn

15 th turn

Losses after the injection

1 st turn

2 nd turn

3 rd turn

4 th turn

5 th turn

6 th turn

7 th turn

8 th turn

9 th turn

10 th turn

11 th turn

12 th turn

13 th turn

14 th turn

15 th turn