Behavior of the magnets during low b squeeze
1 / 22

Behavior of the magnets during low b squeeze - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Uploaded on

Behavior of the magnets during low b squeeze. W. Venturini Delsolaro Acknolowgements M. Giovannozzi, S.Sanfilippo 28 February 2007 LHCCWG meeting. Position of the problem.

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Behavior of the magnets during low b squeeze' - alan-sampson

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Behavior of the magnets during low b squeeze

Behavior of the magnets during low b squeeze

W. Venturini Delsolaro


M. Giovannozzi, S.Sanfilippo

28 February 2007

LHCCWG meeting

Position of the problem
Position of the problem

  • From a magnet standpoint, the low b squeeze is a sequence of current ramps, eventually with changes of sign and stopsfor beam measurements and corrections

  • There are two possible implications, i.e.

    • Hysteresis crossing

    • Decay and snapback

  • Both change the actual field produced for a given current (transfer function)


  • All the DS and MS quadrupoles: MQM, MQY but also MQTL and MQT

  • Working at 4.4 K (from Q4 to Q6) and at 1.9 K (from Q7 to Q13)

  • All currents in the -5390,5390 A range

    • Magnetization effects ~ Jc(T,B)

Assumptions and approach
Assumptions and approach

  • Squeeze from injection optics scaledat 7 TeV (plus change from injection to collision tunes). In some older measurements squeeze followed a cycle to nominal current

  • Squeezing cycles from MADX (β* = 11 m in IP5/IP1)

  • Linear TF used to generate currents

  • Measure fields on (some) squeezing cycles

    • Evaluate deviations due to hysteresis

    • Measure decay on last steps (where stops are more likely )

Same mqm in q5l5
Same MQM in Q5L5 nominal current

Still another example in q9r8
Still another example, in Q9R8 nominal current

2.3 units

A recent measurement: Q6R5B2 nominal current squeeze cyclewith stops on the last 3 steps (to measure decay)and a more realistic pre cycle (starts from injection optics scaled at 7 TeV)Measurements from injection current up to nominal

Small loop nominal current

No decay, or if any, below measurement noise (pretty high in this particular case)

MQTL, Q11R8, B2 nominal current

Max setting errors from hysteresis loops without modeling hysteresis crossing
Max setting errors, nominal current from hysteresis loops(without modeling hysteresis crossing)

  • MQM~ 30 units at 320 A, 10 units at 1000 A, 5 units at 2000 A

  • MQY~ 25 units at 200 A, ~10 units at 300 A

  • MQTL ~ 90 units at 17 A, ~ 25 units at 34 A, etc..

  • MQT ( same as MQTL)

    …diverging at zero

Decay of MQY, MQM for the reference cycle nominal current



16 apertures

6 apertures

from S. Sanfilippo, FQWG meeting on 30.1.2007

Do mqt and mqtl decay
Do MQT and MQTL Decay ? nominal current

Not really…

Concluding remarks 1
Concluding remarks (1) nominal current

  • Δk = f(k) can be extracted from hysteresis loops

  • These errors due to hysteresis add to global uncertainty on gradients, with the present FIDEL model

  • FIDEL modeling of hysteresis crossing should bring errors in the range of few units, but this gets harder at low currents

  • Very low settings for MQTL and MQT, difficult to manage: transfer functions diverge, it is difficult to get the desired field

  • No decay in MQT and MQTL

  • On MQM and MQY full decay characterization needs more data (measurement foreseen in 2007) Data are available at the median injection current, which is only indicative.

2 squeeze on the ramp from a magnet standpoint
(2) Squeeze on the ramp nominal current, from a magnet standpoint

Would possibly reduce the number of hysteresis crossings

Ramp rates could be chosen such that there would be no need to “stop and wait for the arc”, decay would probably be reduced as measurements on the last steps (lowest β*) would take place with the insertion quads already sitting on their final values

Benefit in terms of optics errors remains to be evaluated

Would simplify magnetic model if all ramps are kept monotonous