1 / 21

AWAKE Primary Beamlines

AWAKE Primary Beamlines. C. Bracco, J. Bauche, B. Goddard, E. Gschwendtner, G. Le Godec, L. Jensen, M. Meddahi, J.A. Osborne, A. Pardons, H. Vincke. Outline. TT61 Option: Preliminary Layout and Optics Studies RP and Geometric Constraints Limitations and Possible Solutions

nigel-davis
Download Presentation

AWAKE Primary Beamlines

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. AWAKE Primary Beamlines C. Bracco, J. Bauche, B. Goddard, E. Gschwendtner, G. Le Godec, L. Jensen, M. Meddahi, J.A. Osborne, A. Pardons, H. Vincke

  2. Outline • TT61 Option: • Preliminary Layout and Optics Studies • RP and Geometric Constraints • Limitations and Possible Solutions • Requirements and Time Estimates • CNGS Option: • Requirements and Time Estimates • Electron Beam Line

  3. AWAKE in TT61 Line TT61 tunnel to west hall TI 2 to LHC TT60 from SPS HiRadMat primary beam line (TT66) HiRadMat facility

  4. AWAKE in TT61 Line Beam from SPS Modification of TT66 8 new switching magnets • New AWAKE beam line. Large slope of 8.5 % of TT61 tunnel some equipment of previous H3 beam line in TT61 tunnel still present T1 target shielding dismantled  available free space for switch magnets HiRadMat primary beam line (TT66), fully operational, no changes in layout expected

  5. TT61 Existing Tunnel 8.5% slope = 4.85° Old line: 200 GeV beam  Br ~ 670 T m (protons) New line: 450 GeV beam  Br ~ 1530 T m (protons) ~1.2 m TT61 Gallery cross section

  6. TT4-TT5: RP Constraints Civil engineering works required! • Dump 2 m underground • Beam deflected by 2° Laser 1 QTLD 2 QTLF Beam from TT61: 0 vertical angle 3 QTLD Floor 3MBA Plasma Cell MBB and MBA: B = 2.1 T 2 QTLF 1MBB Dump 2°

  7. TT4-TT5 TL Optics Studies Final Focusing QF QF QF QF MBA MBA MBA MBB QD QD QD QD At Plasma cell entrance: bx=by=5 m ax=ay=0 m Plasma Cell

  8. TT4-TT5 TL Optics Studies Final Focusing QF QF QF QF MBA MBA MBA MBB QD QD QD QD At Plasma cell entrance: Dx= 0 m Dy=-0.2 m Beam size at Plasma cell entrance: 1 sx = 190 mm 1 sy = 280mm (Dp/p =1E-3) Plasma Cell

  9. TT4-TT5 Area Layout Plasma Cell TT5 TT4 New Service gallery Dump

  10. TT4-TT5 Area Layout Start digging the trench after the service gallery  beam higher  exit from TT61 at ~2 m (old 200GeV beam exit at ~1.25 m)  impact on dump depth!! Plasma Cell TT5 TT4 New Service gallery Dump

  11. Preliminary Beamline Design • Magnets: • 8 MBS • 20 vertical bending magnets • 2 horizontal bending magnets • ~ 30 Quads (~20 in TT61 + final focusing) • PC: • ~ 10 units • +Old Line • New Line • - Tunnel

  12. Preliminary Proton Beamline Design • +Old Line • New Line • - Tunnel dump TT5 TT4 TT61 The 450 GeV beam does not fit in the existing tunnel !!

  13. Possible solutions • Fit the 450 GeV beam in TT61  impact on beam angle in TT4-TT5 and on dump depth  RP studies! • Reduce the beam energy to respect all the geometric and RP constraints  check impact on experiment

  14. 450 GeV Beam in TT61 • Magnets: • 8 MBS • 20 vertical bending magnets • 1-2 horizontal bending magnets • ~ 30 Quads (~20 in TT61 + final focusing) • PC: • ~ 10 units • +Old Line • New Line • - Tunnel

  15. 450 GeV Beam in TT61 • +Old Line • New Line • - Tunnel TT5 TT4 TT61 dump ~1.2° angle Dump depth: ~0.5 m Limit in operation (t.b.d. by RP)

  16. Lower Energy: 300 GeV • Magnets: • 8 MBS • ~17 vertical bending magnets • 1 horizontal bending magnets • ~ 30 Quads (~20 in TT61 + final focusing) • PC: • ~ 10 units dump ~2° angle Dump depth: 1.5 m

  17. Impact on Beam Size at 300 GeV Geometric emittancee = 10.9 nm instead of e = 7.2 nm • b = 5m  s = 234 mm instead of 200 mm • b = 3.7 m  s = 200 mm: feasible! At Plasma cell entrance: bx=by=3.7 m ax=ay=0 m Aperture ok Plasma Cell

  18. Magnets and Power Converters • Magnets: • 8 Switches • ~ 20 vertical bending magnets • 1-2 horizontal bending magnets • # Horizontal and vertical correctors t.b.d • ~ 30 Quadrupoles • Power Converters: • ~10 units • Two options: • Design and build new magnets and PC  3 years from specifications + cabling • Re-use existing equipment (inventory needed)  cabling anyhow needed (no manpower available during LS1) • In both cases: first beam in 2017

  19. CNGS Option • Minor modifications of the final focusing system • Magnets and PC already available and in place • Beam instrumentation already available and in place • Re-cabling and new services needed (?) • Possible to increase the energy from 400 GeV to 440 GeV (some margin from 450GeV LHC beam needed for interlock system) really needed? • First beam in 2015 might be feasible (depending on re-cabling/services)!

  20. Electron Beam Line • No studies have been performed up to now • Normally less critical than proton beam (low energy electrons) • Design and production of magnets and PC: • TT61: in the noise of works for proton beam magnets • CNGS: if new design needed  first e-beam in ~2016(?) • To be defined now: • electrons injected from the side of the plasma cell or at the beginning  impact on interface Laser+protons+electrons • Beam parameters

  21. Conclusions • TT61 Option: • Feasibility studies indicate that only lower beam energy can be envisaged (tunnel size, CE work, RP constraints....) • From preliminary study of lower energy beam: beam operation not before 2017 (magnets, all beam line equipments and general services...) • CNGS Option: • Most attractive to meet a sooner beam operation • Less expensive as beam line and equipment already available • Could be staged-installation of the experimental area towards reaching a complete test facility • If CDR to be ready by March 2013, need to conclude during this collaboration meeting on the beam energy (and Co...) so work can proceed

More Related