1 / 67

Simulations of proton cleaning performance in Run 2

Simulations of proton cleaning performance in Run 2. E. Belli, R. Bruce, A. Mereghetti , D. Mirarchi , S. Redaelli. LHC Collimation Working Group #241 Jun 21, 2019. Outline. Overview of Run 2 LHC cycles and collimator settings Introduction to simulations

cooperd
Télécharger la présentation

Simulations of proton cleaning performance in Run 2

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. Simulations of proton cleaning performance in Run 2 E. Belli, R. Bruce, A. Mereghetti, D. Mirarchi, S. Redaelli LHC Collimation Working Group #241 Jun 21, 2019

  2. Outline • Overview of Run 2 LHC cycles and collimator settings • Introduction to simulations • Simulation results and comparison with measurements • Analysis of losses at TCTs, IR3 TCPs and IR6 TCSP • Cleaning inefficiency • Conclusions and further studies E. Belli – Simulations of cleaning performance in Run 2 1

  3. Run 2 LHC cycles Coll. All IPs Coll. All IPs Coll. All IPs Coll. 1/5 Squeeze (= 0.4/10/0.4/3 m) Squeeze (= 0.3/10/0.4/1 m) Squeeze (= 0.8/10/0.8/3 m) Squeeze (= 0.4/10/0.4/1 m) Coll. 2/8 Ramp&Squeeze (= 3/10/3/6 m) Ramp&Squeeze (= 1/10/1/3 m) Ramp&Squeeze (= 1/10/1/3 m) TOTEM bump XRP IN XRP IN XRP IN 2018: Inj. 2016: Inj. 2017: Inj. 2015: Inj. Ramp Xing Lev. Lev. E. Belli – Simulations of cleaning performance in Run 2 Cleaning evaluated at End of Squeeze, more critical in terms of aperture 2

  4. Simulation studies • Standard SixTrack simulations • 6.5 TeV • Pencil beam at TCP • 20 x 106protons for 200 turns • ATS optics E. Belli – Simulations of cleaning performance in Run 2 3

  5. Run 2 collimator settings () for = 3.5 E. Belli – Simulations of cleaning performance in Run 2 4

  6. B1H – 2015 simulations vs measurements IR7 ? IR3 IR1 ? IR8 IR6 IR2 IR1 IR5 IR4 E. Belli – Simulations of cleaning performance in Run 2 5

  7. B1H – 2016 simulations vs measurements IR7 IR3 IR1 IR1 IR5 IR8 ? ? IR2 IR6 IR4 E. Belli – Simulations of cleaning performance in Run 2 6

  8. B1H – 2017 (= 30cm)simulations vs measurements IR7 ? ? IR1 IR3 IR1 IR5 IR6 d s IR2 IR8 IR4 E. Belli – Simulations of cleaning performance in Run 2 7

  9. B1H – 2018 (= 25cm)simulations vs measurements IR7 ? IR1 ? IR3 IR1 IR5 IR6 d s IR2 IR8 IR4 E. Belli – Simulations of cleaning performance in Run 2 8

  10. IR7: B1H – 2015 simulations vs measurements Average cleaning inefficiency E. Belli – Simulations of cleaning performance in Run 2 9

  11. IR7: B1H – 2016 simulations vs measurements E. Belli – Simulations of cleaning performance in Run 2 10

  12. IR7: B1H – 2017 (= 30cm) simulations vs measurements E. Belli – Simulations of cleaning performance in Run 2 11

  13. IR7: B1H – 2018 (= 25cm) simulations vs measurements E. Belli – Simulations of cleaning performance in Run 2 12

  14. Normalized losses at IP1 TCTs B1H B1V E. Belli – Simulations of cleaning performance in Run 2 B2H B2V 13

  15. Normalized losses at IP5 TCTs B1H B1V B1H B1V E. Belli – Simulations of cleaning performance in Run 2 B2H B2V B2H B2V 14

  16. Normalized losses at IR3 TCP and IR6 TCSP E. Belli – Simulations of cleaning performance in Run 2 15 1

  17. Cleaning inefficiency E. Belli – Simulations of cleaning performance in Run 2 16

  18. Conclusions • Proton cleaning simulations performed for the entire Run 2 • Comparison with measurements shows a good qualitative agreementof global loss pattern although some peaks still need to be understood • Trend of losses at TCTs, IR3 TCPs and TCSPs in agreement with measurements • Relative comparison between years not possible because of different BLM positions • Possible further studies • FLUKA simulations for a quantitative comparison • Machine imperfections (errors on collimator positions and jaw surface, magnetic and aperture errors around the ring, etc.) to be included in simulations E. Belli – Simulations of cleaning performance in Run 2 17

  19. Back up slides… E. Belli – Simulations of cleaning performance in Run 2

  20. B1H – 2015 simulations vs measurements E. Belli – Simulations of cleaning performance in Run 2

  21. IR7: B1H – 2015 simulations vs measurements E. Belli – Simulations of cleaning performance in Run 2

  22. B1V – 2015 simulations vs measurements E. Belli – Simulations of cleaning performance in Run 2

  23. IR7: B1V – 2015 simulations vs measurements E. Belli – Simulations of cleaning performance in Run 2

  24. B2H – 2015 simulations vs measurements E. Belli – Simulations of cleaning performance in Run 2

  25. IR7: B2H – 2015 simulations vs measurements E. Belli – Simulations of cleaning performance in Run 2

  26. B2V – 2015 simulations vs measurements E. Belli – Simulations of cleaning performance in Run 2

  27. IR7: B2V – 2015 simulations vs measurements E. Belli – Simulations of cleaning performance in Run 2

  28. B1H – 2016 simulations vs measurements E. Belli – Simulations of cleaning performance in Run 2

  29. IR7: B1H – 2016 simulations vs measurements E. Belli – Simulations of cleaning performance in Run 2

  30. B1V – 2016 simulations vs measurements E. Belli – Simulations of cleaning performance in Run 2

  31. IR7: B1V – 2016 simulations vs measurements E. Belli – Simulations of cleaning performance in Run 2

  32. B2H – 2016 simulations vs measurements E. Belli – Simulations of cleaning performance in Run 2

  33. IR7: B2H – 2016 simulations vs measurements E. Belli – Simulations of cleaning performance in Run 2

  34. B2V – 2016 simulations vs measurements E. Belli – Simulations of cleaning performance in Run 2

  35. IR7: B2V – 2016 simulations vs measurements E. Belli – Simulations of cleaning performance in Run 2

  36. B1H – 2017 (= 40cm)simulations vs measurements E. Belli – Simulations of cleaning performance in Run 2

  37. IR7: B1H – 2017 (= 40cm) simulations vs measurements E. Belli – Simulations of cleaning performance in Run 2

  38. B1V – 2017 (= 40cm) simulations vs measurements E. Belli – Simulations of cleaning performance in Run 2

  39. IR7: B1V – 2017 (= 40cm) simulations vs measurements E. Belli – Simulations of cleaning performance in Run 2

  40. B2H – 2017 (= 40cm) simulations vs measurements E. Belli – Simulations of cleaning performance in Run 2

  41. IR7: B2H – 2017 (= 40cm) simulations vs measurements E. Belli – Simulations of cleaning performance in Run 2

  42. B2V – 2017 (= 40cm) simulations vs measurements E. Belli – Simulations of cleaning performance in Run 2

  43. IR7: B2V – 2017 (= 40cm) simulations vs measurements E. Belli – Simulations of cleaning performance in Run 2

  44. B1H – 2017 (= 30cm) simulations vs measurements E. Belli – Simulations of cleaning performance in Run 2

  45. IR7: B1H – 2017 (= 30cm) simulations vs measurements E. Belli – Simulations of cleaning performance in Run 2

  46. B1V – 2017 (= 30cm) simulations vs measurements E. Belli – Simulations of cleaning performance in Run 2

  47. IR7: B1V – 2017 (= 30cm) simulations vs measurements E. Belli – Simulations of cleaning performance in Run 2

  48. B2H – 2017 (= 30cm) simulations vs measurements E. Belli – Simulations of cleaning performance in Run 2

  49. IR7: B2H – 2017 (= 30cm) simulations vs measurements E. Belli – Simulations of cleaning performance in Run 2

  50. B2V – 2017 (= 30cm) simulations vs measurements E. Belli – Simulations of cleaning performance in Run 2

More Related