1 / 44

SPS configuration and beam transfer

SPS configuration and beam transfer. B. Goddard, G. Arduini , J. Bauche , K. Cornelis , CERN With important input from many other colleagues First SHiP Workshop, 10-12 June 2014. Outline. SPS configuration Layout and fixed target zones Beam parameters for SHiP Protons per year

dani
Download Presentation

SPS configuration and beam transfer

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. SPS configuration and beam transfer B. Goddard, G. Arduini, J. Bauche, K. Cornelis, CERN With important input from many other colleagues First SHiP Workshop, 10-12 June 2014

  2. Outline • SPS configuration • Layout and fixed target zones • Beam parameters for SHiP • Protons per year • Slow extraction and potential issues • Beam transfer to target • TT20 reuse • Switching into the new SHiP beamline • Dilution system • Schedule • Summary and outlook

  3. SPS Fixed-Target facilities North Area Commissioned 17 June 1976 and still going strong CNGS/AWAKE HiRadMat Now: LHC injector, beams to North Area, HiRadMat, AWAKE Plasma wakefield facility

  4. Beam parameters for SHiP • Baseline based on past peak SPS performance (for integrated performance estimate we assumed 4.2x1013 p/cycle on target). • Slow extraction for 1 s – possible implications later… • Ultimatescenario basedon the target to accelerate up to 7x1013 p/cycle beingstudied(LAGUNA-LBNO)  for the moment (very) hypothetical. • Cannot count on « ultimate » parameters • Should not over-constrain (or kill) good design options for « ultimate »

  5. Integrated performance - input • Constraints considered: • Concurrent operation with LHC, Fixed Target program for NA TCC2 targets, Machine Development • Maximum resistive power that can be dissipated in the SPS main magnets (39.0 MW limited by cooling) • Based on recent performance and on 2011 injector schedule

  6. Integrated performance - estimate Baseline parameters Realistically somewhere around here? 4e19 p+/y for ship means about 5e19 p+/y extracted (factor 2 aboveprevious “record” year from slow extracted beam through LSS2)

  7. Summary of p.o.t. analysis • The goals integrated performance of 4x1019 p.o.t./year is within reach for the beam parameters considered and with realistic assumptions on: • time-sharing with other programs • machine availability • transmission efficiency • Potential issues: • Requirements form TCC2 experiments in terms of p.o.t. • Performance of electrostatic septa  studies • Radiation levels in North Extraction (LSS2) area  studies

  8. Slow extraction and losses Stable area in H phase space defined with 6-poles Shrink area by approaching tune to 1/3 integer Particles follow separatrices out across septum wire Spiral step at (60 um) wire ~15 mm determines losses • Transverse losses typically 0.5 – 1.0 % • Sparking of ZS septa and damage to wires is possible • Spill of 0.1 – 10 sec possible

  9. ZS septa Anodes made of 2080x 60 um W/Re wires 5 individual anodes, aligned together over ~20 m

  10. Slow extraction (vs fast) • For machine, fast extraction is conceptually better • Local (and distributed) losses are a factor of ~10-100 lower • Machine protection is well-known and controlled • Can extract all the intensity SPS can accelerate • Can easily follow any upgrade in SPS intensity • 20 us spill length • Cannot do fast and slow to NA in same SC • (Also needs new Non Local Extraction to be commissioned) • Slow extraction: may well limit performance • Beam losses in LSS2, which activate equipment beyond tolerable levels (see talk by Heinz Vincke for more details on RP concerns) • Septumsparking and damage • Radiation damage to cables and other components • Mitigation would be fewer p+/cycle, or (maybe better) longer cycles • But operational now, and no issues with multi-cycling with NA

  11. Slow extraction spill • Spill in p+/s moderated by servo quadrupoles, which work in feed-forward to correct mains harmonics • Needs regular adjustment (daily) for good correction • With 1 s extraction, additional overshoot at start of spill likely Well-adjusted p+ spill Less well-adjusted p+ spill - Experiments should certainly design for spikes in p+ rate of 2-3 times average - Also a concern for target, for any large initial overshoot

  12. Other extraction options? • Topics for future study – but no magic bullet

  13. Beam transport to top of TT20 • TT20 presently operating with slow-extracted 400 GeV/c beams, so no major functionality changes • Probably need improvements to loss monitoring • Some minor changes of instrumentation near switch region • Optics would need some modifications near splitters • Already done* for 100 GeV transport for short-baseline studies, no major problems found • Need to check implementation feasibility of ‘fast’ settings changes for TT20 between FT and SHiP beams (magnets should be OK as laminated – to check convertors, interlocking) *M.Kowalska

  14. Switching from TT20 at 400 GeV • Already studied in a lot of detail for LAGUNA-LBNO • Difficult with 1336 Tm rigidity primary beam! • Recent idea to switch at splitter magnets MSSB.2117 • Replace existing magnet with bipolar laminated Lamberson septum splitter with larger H aperture in high-field region • No show-stoppers identified to date for preliminary considerations

  15. MSSB splitters

  16. New switch/splitter magnet • Need to provide opposite-polarity dipole field for SHIP cycles, with larger horizontal aperture, while keeping existing MSSB functionality for FT cycles • New magnet functional specification • High radiation resistance (~50 mSv/h activation typical) • Very high reliability design • 0.8 T dipole field, 4.7 m magnetic length, 5.2 physical • Laminated yoke (now solid iron) • Min ramp up/down time ~2 sec • Same aperture and septum dimensions as present

  17. Existing MSSB • Present magnet – very effective design with separate vacuum envelope, special mineral insulated evacuated cable, precision machined septum insert • Need to increase gap width from 400 to 530 mm and build laminated yoke Existing New?

  18. Comments on magnet feasibility (MSC/EPC/ABT) • Present MSSB design is in-vacuum Lambertson, clever vacuum separation for coils in air, radiation robust materials and assembly • 0.8 T in gap means 1.6-1.8 T at point of septum – not possible to increase. 0.8 T limit for new design • Need about 60 kA – turns. • Laminated yoke essential – existing SPS septum technology. Stacking factor can be 98%, so magnet length might increase 2%, to maybe 4.8 m. • “Such a laminated magnet should be feasible – but will be expensive” • Powering feasible, using Linac4 converter technology • Power converter location to be defined (new building) – “BA80 full”

  19. New switch magnet parameters

  20. Elements downstream of switch • Can be something which looks symmetrical to T6 line, but on other side of T2/T4 beamline Splitter/switch First quad possible SHIP beamline

  21. Other beamline elements • Need several (~10) main dipoles as early as possible in line to move beam out of TDC2 • First iteration, assume 9x MBB dipoles (SPS main dipoles) which give about 8 mrad at 1.8 T • Detailed integration needed, depends on available magnets • Total inventory ~20 main magnets, ~10 correctors/smaller magnets, with ~20 new power converters

  22. First ‘realistic’ geometry T2 SHIP line Lattice files for CE for first layouts of tunnels and caverns (see John Osborne’s talk)

  23. Beam transport to target • ‘Easy’ problem as need dilution – drift alone is good! • Some first basic checks indicate 2/3 km beta functions possible in H/V planes, giving ~6 mm beam spot sigma

  24. Dilution – optimisation? • Beam density (p+/mm2) on target an issue • Can try and optimise sweep to spread beam out over as much of the target as possible • For LHC we reliably sweep 350 MJ in 86 us, with rigid 7 TeV beam and 150 mm radius… …must be able to do better than a simple circle for SHiP! LHC beam dump sweep See later talk by Marco Calviani

  25. Archimedean spiral sweep? • R = q^n • Equal separation between adjacent spirals. • Test sweep: adjusted frequency as a function of radius to also give equal spacing in unit time along sweep length • Radius 5-35 mm, total path 620 mm (cf 190)

  26. Dilution magnets and powering • Need about 0.2 mrad peak kick per plane • 150 m drift between sweep magnet and target • Assume MPLH type (SPS extraction bumper) • Max 400 A in 300 ms, for 1.2 mrad kick • 1200 A/s means ~3 Hz sine is possible for 0.2 mrad • Here f0 changes from 2.8 Hz at 0.23 mrad, to 20 Hz at 0.03 mrad. So dI/dt and V should just about be feasible

  27. Schedule considerations (beamline) • First estimates made on basis of: • detailed planning made for other recent studies; • Experience with HiRadMat construction; • Experience with CNGS construction; • Discussions with magnet group on new MSSB VERY PRELIMINARY!

  28. TT20/new beamline junction – LS2 • LS2 = LHC Long Shutdown2 (18 months from mid 2018) • Remove TT20 elements to remove over ~150 m before start of junction cavern civil engineering works. Special procedures with radioactive equipment. 1 month • [Civil engineering work] • Reinstall services and cabling: 4 months • Resinstall and test TT20 beamline elements: 2 months (1 month in parallel with services) • Total time where CE/beam excluded : 6months • Not to neglect: cooldown time before dismantling! CRITICAL

  29. Conclusions and outlook • SPS has potential to deliver 4e19 p.o.t. annually for SHiP with 1e19 p.o.t. for other NA experiments • Will be difficult to improve on this • A 1 s slow extraction in LSS2 is feasible but may limit performance: losses, septum performance, radiation damage • 4.5e13 p+/cycle is ambitious with 1 s flat top • 5e19 p+/y extracted (including NA beams) will be twice record • Beam transport through TT20 looks straightforward • New switch/splitter to keep compatibility with NA is “feasible” • Dilution system may be optimised to ease target constraints • Planning of LS2 work critical for overall schedule • Detailed technical studies on critical items, with more accurate costing and scheduling will be next steps • Start machine studies of extraction limits and losses (2015?)

  30. fin

  31. Integrated performance: Ultimate (hypothetical) Actual gain in p.o.t. for SHiP is ~30%, for 55% increase p+/spill…

  32. SPS super-cycles for SHiP

  33. Extraction options from LSS2 • Fast extraction best for machine • But spill length very short…. • ….no kickers in LSS2 (nor space for them) • …and not compatible with NA FT beam supercycle (as yet) • Resonant best for experiment, but concerns about performance reach • Losses, activation, septum damage • Upgrade potential (to make use of any future SPS improvement)

  34. WANF – ½ integer resonance - Total of ~7.2e19 p+ in 5 year, but specific losses 3x that for 1/3 integer slow extraction - Activation levels can be taken as similar to those expected for LSS2 with SHiP

  35. Past performance for FT beams • Slow extraction to NA targets • Recent max (2007) about 2.3e19 p+/y • Typically 1e19 –2014 target is 2.4e19…

  36. CNGS: 1.8e20 p+ 2006-12 From CNGS Project web

  37. Past performance for CNGS beams • Maximum in “recent” years about 5e19 p+/y • Fast extraction to CNGS target (loss “free”) • Limit: CT losses at PS extraction septum – no MTE CNGS 2011

  38. Fast extraction • Very low transverse losses (total ~e-4 for CNGS, dominated by longitudinal) • Machine protection needs to be good – no damage for CNGS or LHC in 5 years • Drawback for target and experiment: 1x 20 us or 2x 10 us spill time…

  39. LSS2 fast extraction for SHiP • No extraction kickers in LSS2 • Non-local extraction NLE tested in 2010 at 440 GeV, using kickers in LSS6 to extract in LSS2 • Not yet near being operational

  40. Exotic extraction ideas • Fast-burst Multi-Turn Resonant Extraction (MTE)* • Repeated trapping of small part of beam intensity in resonant islands, followed by fast extraction • Could maybe foresee to extract full beam in 20-50 mini-spills of 100 us long (4 SPS turns) • Total spill time is then about 2-5 ms • Could have 20-50 ms between mini-spills, to keep this within 1 s flat-top • Is this range of any interest for experiments and target? • Totally untested idea • Major new HW needed: 2 sets of “MKE like” 400 GeV kickers for closed bump -> cost, impedance, space in lattice *proposed by M.Giavannozzi

  41. ZS septa 5x 3m long septa, 220 kV

  42. ZS septa 220 kV, 2 cm HV gap

  43. Comments on (vertical) geometry • Presently kept SHIP line at same level as top of TT20/TDC2/TCC2 • possible to easily tilt beamline up or down by 10 – 15 mrad – is this required (RP, CE)? SHIP line

  44. Overall schedule – LS2 critical

More Related