1 / 18

LSWG day: Impedance and beam induced heating

LSWG day: Impedance and beam induced heating. Nicolas Mounet * , Daria Atapovych , Nicolò Biancacci, Elias Métral, Tatiana Pieloni, Stefano Redaelli, Benoit Salvant Acknowledgments:

edan-mccoy
Download Presentation

LSWG day: Impedance and beam induced heating

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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. LSWG day:Impedance and beam induced heating Nicolas Mounet*, Daria Atapovych, Nicolò Biancacci, Elias Métral, Tatiana Pieloni, Stefano Redaelli, Benoit Salvant Acknowledgments: Collimation team, BE-BI, TE-ABT, EN-STI, ALFA and TOTEM teams,Philippe Baudrenghien, Themis Mastoridis, Juan Esteban Mueller, Giulia Papotti, Giovanni Rumolo, Elena Shaposhnikova, Carlo Zannini. *: now at EPFL

  2. Agenda • Proposed objectives of MDs • Impedance: • Outcome of MDs in run 1 in a nutshell • Proposals for what would be needed for run 2 • Beam induced heating: • Outcome of MDs in run 2 in a nutshell • Proposals for what would be needed for run 2 • Conclusions

  3. Proposed objectives of impedance/heating MDs • Mandatory: assess if intensity limits significantly changed during LS1 due to modified/replaced/added devices and to the increase in energy: • 1 consolidated injection dump collimator TDI per beam, • 1 spare primary collimator TCP for beam 1, • 8 new tertiary collimators TCT with buttons and ferrite per beam, • 1 new TCDQ module per beam, • 1 consolidated BSRT mirror per beam, • 4 upgraded MKI injection kickers per beam, • new experimental beam pipes in CMS and ATLAS • All consolidated TOTEM and ALFA pots (+ new TOTEM pots). • + many “smaller” items (e.g. caroussel chamber in 800 mm chambers) • Very interesting: • Localize impedance sources • Check single bunch stability threshold at injection energy • Check the impedance/heating of other devices (e.g. IR3, IR7, MKD) • Assess the feasibility of reducing/increasing bunch length, changing the bunch profile • Assess the feasibility of optimizing the beta functions to reduce transverse impedance

  4. Agenda • Proposed objectives of MDs • Impedance: • Outcome of MDs in run 1 in a nutshell • Proposals for what would be needed for run 2 • Beam induced heating: • Outcome of MDs in run 2 in a nutshell • Proposals for what would be needed for run 2 • Conclusions

  5. Impedance: Results from LHC run 1 N. Mounet et al  Discrepancy between measurement and predictions should reduce thanks to the addition of geometric impedance (O. Frasciello and M. Zobov: -15%) and more convergence studies between HEADTAIL and DELPHI (Daria Astapovych)

  6. Collimator impedance model vs tune shift measurements N. Mounet et al Accounting for geometric impedance and using more converged simulations reduced the discrepancy by ~30% for collimators.  Still ~50 % is missing

  7. Impedance: Results from LHC run 1 Example: Horizontal tune while moving the TCSG.6R7 gap • Impedance of moving devices: • Collimation system • TDI • TCDQ  very large discrepancy • Localization N. Mounet et al, instability review 2013 With the LHC accuracy and 2200 turns with an AC dipole, we should be able to detect the TDI IR7 collimators and the TDIs at injection  promising! N. Biancacci et al

  8. Agenda • Proposed objectives of MDs • Impedance: • Outcome of MDs in run 1 in a nutshell • Proposals for what would be needed for run 2 • Beam induced heating: • Outcome of MDs in run 2 in a nutshell • Proposals for what would be needed for run 2 • Conclusions

  9. Impedance: What we need to prepare run 2 (with single bunches only) “Mandatory”  potential expected or unexpected limitations • Assess total longitudinal effective impedance at injection and top energy for both beams • See presentation of Elena Shaposhnikova • Assess total transverse imaginary effective impedance at injection and top energy for both beams • By measuring betatron tune shift vs intensity (ideally performed with 8 single bunches of various intensities) • Which requires precise tune measurement (BBQ), bunch length, intensity, chromaticity • Assess total real effective impedance at injection and top energy for both beams • By measuring instability growth rate vs chromaticity (ideally performed with 8 single bunches of various intensities) • Which requires tune measurement, bunch length measurement, BCT, chromaticty, Headtail monitor, operational bunch by bunch damper and instability trigger • TMCI threshold in both planes for both beams at top energy • By measuring instability threshold at chromaticity~0 (ideally performed with 8 single bunches) • Which requires high bunch intensity from injectors tune measurement, bunch length measurement, BCT, chromaticity, Headtail monitor, operational bunch by bunch damper and instability trigger

  10. Impedance: What we need to prepare run 2 (with single bunches only) • Mandatory: checking the impact of modified moving equipment: • Assess TDI jaw longitudinal and transverse impedance • Assess TCDQ jaw longitudinal and transverse impedance (following inconsistency between model and measurement in 2012) • Assess impedance of new TCTP with buttons and ferrite • Phase error and tune shift while moving the jaws • Which requires the phase error application • Assess impedance of new Roman pots • “Nice to have” • Attempt localization of impedance • TMCI threshold in both planes for both beams at injection energy • Assess IR7 jaw longitudinal and transverse impedance at injection and top energies • Assess IR3 jaw longitudinal and transverse impedance at injection and top energies • Assess the feasibility of changing beta functions to reduce transverse impedance • Impedance measurements at top energy would give: • Impact of smaller gap of collimators : • Can they be put closer in special conditions at injection energy? • Could avoid the need to ramp • Could increase the resolution of tune shift measurements • Impact of increased resistance of copper in beam screens  We should try to learn as much as we can at injection

  11. Agenda • Proposed objectives of MDs • Impedance: • Outcome of MDs in run 1 in a nutshell • Proposals for what would be needed for run 2 • Beam induced heating: • Outcome of MDs in run 2 in a nutshell • Proposals for what would be needed for run 2 • Conclusions

  12. Heating due to impedance: results from run 1 • Temperature monitoring: all fills were “MDs”, in particular with the voltage increase in the middle of the fills. • Bunch length reduction (OP test at injection energy in 2012):  no obvious show stopper to go to nominal bunch length • Flattening MD:  very promising way to reduce heating on certain equipment (see Elena Shaposhnikova’s talk) • Synchronous phase error and logged longitudinal beam spectra: very interesting tool to measure heating of moving devices.

  13. Agenda • Proposed objectives of MDs • Impedance: • Outcome of MDs in run 1 in a nutshell • Proposals for what would be needed for run 2 • Beam induced heating: • Outcome of MDs in run 2 in a nutshell • Proposals for what would be needed for run 2 • Conclusions

  14. Heating: what we need to prepare run 2 • With single bunch/few bunches: • heating should be very small  measure the stable phase error  check the delta phase error when moving devices (e.g. TDI), but energy loss may also be too small to be detected. • With many bunches • Check impact of intensity, bunch length, bunch shape on temperature (when monitors installed) and vacuum pressures during regular fills • Check the impact of bunch length changes and flattening (need time for large thermal capacity equipment), better at top energy since bunch length increases less due to IBS. • Measure temperature and stable phase error for changing gaps of moving devices vs number of bunches to estimate if the heating is due to broadband or narrow band devices.

  15. Agenda • Proposed objectives of MDs • Impedance: • Outcome of MDs in run 1 in a nutshell • Proposals for what would be needed for run 2 • Beam induced heating: • Outcome of MDs in run 2 in a nutshell • Proposals for what would be needed for run 2 • Conclusions

  16. Conclusions • Many needed/interesting MD proposals • Some were not tried before LS1 • We should focus on getting MDs for both beams (see Tatiana’s talk) • Most impedance MDs can be performed on single bunches, and a large part at injection energy • As proposed by Giulia Papotti, quite a few single bunch instability MDs, moving devices MDs and scraping MDs could be performed as end of fill with dedicated operational procedures (if OK for MPP and collimation)  more statistics.

More Related