1 / 32

Beam transfer for NA neutrinos: Extraction from SPS , Transfer lines to targets

B.Goddard F.Velotti , A.Parfenova , R.Steerenberg , K.Cornelis , W.Bartmann, V.Kain, E.Carlier, A.Alekou , M.Meddahi, L.Jensen V.Mertens , A.Kosmicki , J.Osborne , I.Efthymiopoulos. Beam transfer for NA neutrinos: Extraction from SPS , Transfer lines to targets. Overview.

adriel
Download Presentation

Beam transfer for NA neutrinos: Extraction from SPS , Transfer lines to targets

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. B.Goddard F.Velotti, A.Parfenova, R.Steerenberg, K.Cornelis, W.Bartmann, V.Kain, E.Carlier, A.Alekou, M.Meddahi, L.Jensen V.Mertens, A.Kosmicki, J.Osborne, I.Efthymiopoulos Beam transfer for NA neutrinos: Extraction from SPS, Transfer lines to targets

  2. Overview • Extraction feasibility – studies and MD ongoing • Simulation and MD results • Beamline feasibility – studies starting • Summary of input required from other study groups • BT WG objectives and some concerns • Conclusion B.Goddard

  3. Extraction feasibility studies • Reminder: very difficult to integrate kickers into LSS2, so exploring the idea to use other SPS kickers : • LSS2 extraction using LSS1 MKP kicker (limited to ~100 GeV) • Easiest to configure and test with beam (no interlocking issues) • Simulations competed, MD tests done, beam extracted to TT20 • Active test program continuing • LSS2 extraction using LSS6 MKE kicker (up to 450 GeV) • Constrained by interlocking and energy limits • Planning to test with HiRadMat beam (at 440 GeV), late in 2012 • 400 GeV in theory easier than 100 GeV (beams x2 smaller) • Simulations in progress, MDs being organised • LSS2 extraction using LSS4 MKE kicker (up to 450 GeV) • In reserve... B.Goddard

  4. Phase advances – 2012 optics LSS1->LSS2: LHC Q26 lss1_deltamu =        4.1895 (68.22 deg) ; kick_2 =      0.929 ; LSS6->LSS2: CNGS lss6_deltamu =        9.0675 (24.29 deg); kick_6 =       0.411 ; LSS6->LSS2: LHC Q26 lss6_deltamu =        8.8998 (323.94 deg); kick_6 =      -0.589 ; LSS6->LSS2: LHC Q20  lss6_deltamu =        6.8491 (305.60 deg); kick_6 =      -0.812 ; B.Goddard

  5. Simulations – LSS1->LSS2 Kicker LSS1 Extraction LSS2 ~1.2 km Bump and extraction trajectories (110 GeV, 8 um, ±5 s envelopes)

  6. Zoom in extraction region Including orbit from quadrupole misalignments (100 mm)

  7. Aperture quantification, with SPS orbit 110 GeV Bumped beam 110 GeV Extr. beam 3.7-3.8 s 5.1-5.2 s 100 GeV Bumped beam 100 GeV Extr beam 4.5-4.6 s 5.7-5.8 s

  8. SPS measurements (I) 4/09/2012: LSS1 – LSS2 phase advance checks • Phase advance scatters within ±15° around value expected from linear lattice (20.5°) • No tune dependence on oscillation amplitude or intensity B.Goddard

  9. SPS measurements (II) 17/09/2012Extraction test MST/MSE MKP

  10. 1/6 of SPS circumference, 130 m of TT20 LSS1: MKP LSS2: MST LSS2: MSE TT20 TED SPS TT20 TT20.BTV B.Goddard TT20.BTV

  11. Supercycle composition - dedicated B.Goddard

  12. LSS2 closed orbit bump New bump shape with huge 60 mm excursion in QFA216 Very small leakage (rms ~0.3 mm) – no losses or issues B.Goddard

  13. First fast extraction in LSS2 BTV.210026 BTV.210352 • MKP kickers pulsed using timing event and pre-pulse (no beam from PS) • Beam extracted into TT20 using calculated settings • MKP on at 52 kV for three generators • MST on at 0.5 mrad • MSE on at 1.92 mrad • Needed then to trim MSE up by few % (as usual)

  14. Aperture and loss scans 4e11 p+, 110 GeV, blown up to 7 um.mrad to approach CNGS parameters Issue seen with too-fast bumper functions, corrected

  15. Effect of bumper function correction Losses from bump overshoot Extraction losses (extraction time 2400 ms) Before correction After correction B.Goddard

  16. Losses with 7 um H/V beam emittance Extraction losses (extraction time 2400 ms) Injection losses (likely vertical) B.Goddard

  17. Extracting 7 um.mrad with 10% more MKP kick strength (as for 100 GeV beam) Managed to get SPS orbit acquisition for last turn Some coupling into V? To understand No measurable extraction losses (extraction time 2400 ms) B.Goddard

  18. Other extraction aspects • Other feasibility aspects being considered: • Interlocking and machine protection issues • Beam Interlock Controllers, interlocking logic, Energy Tracking • Conceptual solution already defined with interlocking team • All machine protection implications to be examined (MPP 28/09/12) • Kicker HW upgrades needed for double extraction • Charging supplies, PFNs, cabling, … • Kicker control updates also required • Pre-pulses, timing, cabling, … • Extraction region BI for both fast and slow beams • Screens, BPMs, BLMs, BCTs • No major feasibility issues identified to date – designing adequate machine protection will be the key issue B.Goddard

  19. Summary for “non-local” extraction • Concept shown to work, on paper and in machine. • Clean extraction achieved (for low intensity beam only) • MKP can extract 100-110 GeV in LSS2 with εn=7 μm • Allows 11 us extraction flat-top, with < 1 us rise time – RCPS upgrade needed to make double extraction (like CNGS) • Losses scaled to CNGS intensity look same order of magnitude as those seen now in LSS4 (higher intensity will only make things worse) • 100 GeV (kick 10% bigger) is more comfortable, but will need to address the SPS dump “forbidden zone” (or use 102.3 GeV...) • MKE kickers in LSS6 will be tested, will allow high energy (in principle to 450 GeV) • But their present rise time is 6-7 ms: cannot make double extraction. B.Goddard

  20. Beamline feasibility studies • TT20/21 upgrade for FE 100/400 GeV beam • Optics, aperture, powering, instrumentation, … • New beamline sections to neutrino targets • Geometry, optics, layout, instrumentation, magnets, powering, CV, access, civil engineering, transport, services, interlocks, vacuum, RP, … B.Goddard

  21. Beamline study status • Coordinates of targets defined, in first version • A.Kosmicki / J.Osborne 20120727 – EDMS# 1233951 • Recent update with optimised target location/orientation • Now iterating on these first layouts • More precise branching location and switch layout • More precise bending radii, first order geometry and optics, beam parameters • Constraints still to be finalised • Max/min beam energy, max/min beam emittances, dp/p, bunch structure, any loss limitations, required beam parameters at targets, CE constraints, ... B.Goddard

  22. Branching from TT20: switch length needed TT40/TT41 (CNGS/TI 8) 8x MBSG switch magnets, ~40 m Length scales with ~B.r TT40/TT41 switch ~40 m long (400 GeV) Will need ~10 m ‘free’ for 100 GeV beam B.Goddard

  23. Branching from TT20 • Needs to be well before splitter magnets • Splitters will stay for slow extracted beams • Very high radiation in magnets and tunnel (CE probably affected?) • Optics progressively more and more screwed up • Before 16 mrad a2 H bend is useful for extracting beam from tunnel • Before 110 mrad j2 V bend not so good, but probably feasible B.Goddard

  24. Branching from TT20 at 100 GeV Switch magnet here ? a2 j2 j2 j2 ~5 m free j2 ~7 m free B.Goddard

  25. Input still needed from other “study teams” • Beam parameters at targets (from target designers) • sxsy,axay,DxDy • Beam position jitter tolerance, required tuning range (s) • Needed for optics design • Civil engineering constraints (from civil engineering) • Junction cavern lengths, tunnel separations, depth constraints, modifications of existing structures, .. • Needed to define primary beamline layout • Beam characteristics from injectors and SPS (from OP) • Intensity, transverse emittance, dp/p • Needed for aperture definition, simulations, losses, instrumentation, .. • Estimates of required POT (from experiments) • Per year, and over facility lifetime • Needed for magnet dose/activation/decommissioning estimates, materials choice, aperture choices, ... B.Goddard

  26. Beam transfer study WG objectives • Assume scope is (for now) limited to feasibility study • Objectives: • Complete feasibility study and MD in SPS to show that non-local fast extraction can work, and identify best concept • Define conceptual design for extraction from SPS and beamlines to targets, including first layout details and key aspects for CE • Define basic technical requirements for all associated HW systems, infrastructure and services • Assemble cost and resource estimates for extraction and beamline systems to targets, from systems groups B.Goddard

  27. What is the assumed timeline for implementation? • Need input on baseline for timeline: dates for • Completion of feasibility study • Decision on implementation • Construction and installation dates • Commissioning and operation dates • Important, because many technical groups completely saturated (e.g. no cabling activity possible until LS2) • The time deadlines clearly affects the feasibility, depending on required development, construction, cabling etc. B.Goddard

  28. Open questions /discussion To extend scope of present effort need “official” recognition of this activity as a study. When is this expected? Will this activity be included in MTP/APT etc.? Manpower priorities? Budget codes for design effort, ...? Need urgently an overall mandate, scope and structure as a lot of information and work is needed from other teams, and cannot do this unofficially. Potential overlap or competition for resources with other studies to manage correctly – for example AWAKE re-use of CNGS beamline or components, LAGUNA layouts, LIU proposed upgrade of MKPA/C kickers for ions B.Goddard

  29. Conclusions • Fast extraction from LSS2 (still) looks feasible • Works on paper, and first tests in SPS encouraging • MDs and studies ongoing • Should be able to conclude in 4-6 weeks • Machine protection will be main ‘feasibility’ issue • Beamline studies in progress • Target coordinates known, other input still needed (especially beam parameters at target) • Branching from well before TT20 splitter seems mandatory • Space ~150 m upstream – about 8 m vertical offset • Will need some time (6-8 weeks?) for iteration with CE experts to produce a first ‘working’ version of the layout which will allow details of magnet types etc. to be known B.Goddard

  30. B.Goddard

  31. Target coordinates v2.0 A.Kosmicki/J.Osborne

More Related