1 / 11

BI.BSW Chicane Magnets review

BI.BSW Chicane Magnets review. D. Aguglia, B. Balhan, J. Borburgh , C. Bracco, B. Goddard, D. Nisbet. Contents. Bump closure Influence from the main dipoles Multi turn (>2) variants feasibility Chicane powering. Bump closure simulation 1/3 (action 6,7,8).

malory
Télécharger la présentation

BI.BSW Chicane Magnets review

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. BI.BSW Chicane Magnets review D. Aguglia, B. Balhan, J. Borburgh, C. Bracco, B. Goddard, D. Nisbet

  2. Contents Bump closure Influence from the main dipoles Multi turn (>2) variants feasibility Chicane powering Review follow up on PSB 160 MeV H- injection

  3. Bump closure simulation 1/3 (action 6,7,8) • 4 BSW’s (1 ring) modelled in single FE model (Vector Fields). • No cross talk between magnets observed. • Bump closure simulated at nominal current: bump is closed within the accuracy of the model (mesh size ~2mm). Complete field map available. Review follow up on PSB 160 MeV H- injection

  4. Bump closure simulation 2/3 Not to scale Review follow up on PSB 160 MeV H- injection

  5. Bumpclosure 3/3required/assumedtolerances • The non-closure amplitude is estimated assuming 66 mrad deflection and 6 m average H beta function, with uncorrelated errors • *Note that for the vertical orbit non-closure, the roll angle tolerance of the dipole magnets is about 1 mrad (much more sensitive) • Tolerances are typically 1e-3, and 1 mrad alignment, except yaw which can be 20-30 mrad • Tracking accuracy of individual supplies will need to be better than 1e-3 Review follow up on PSB 160 MeV H- injection

  6. Influence of the main dipoles (action 8, 22) • A very large model with a ¼ of BHZ and BS1(ring 3 and 4) was created in Vector Fields. • Field has been analysed to study effect on BS1 at injection (160 MeV). • Model was made available to the MSC group to assess the impact of the BSW’s on the BHZ. Review follow up on PSB 160 MeV H- injection

  7. Influence of BHZ on BS1 at injection Small reduction of ∫B.dl of BSW (~3‰) Very limited effect on field homogeneity Effect on BS4 still to be quantified Complete field map available Review follow up on PSB 160 MeV H- injection

  8. Multi-turn BSW variants (action 9) • 8 turn version feasible for window frame variants (BSW2,3,and4). • Only 2 or possibly 4 turn variant possible for septum (BSW1). Depending on leak field requirements (still to be defined and calculated). Review follow up on PSB 160 MeV H- injection

  9. Chicane powering (action 5) 1/3 2 different nominal currents (BSW1 and BSW2-4), with separate power supplies for each. Current setting individually adjustable for each magnet (±5% w.r.t nominal setting). Transformers in tunnel from BSW1’s (4 in total) in case 2 turn magnets. Transformers might be put farther from injection area in case of 4 turn magnets. No transformers needed in tunnel for 8-turn BSW’s. Review follow up on PSB 160 MeV H- injection

  10. Chicane powering (action 5) 2/3 • Powering solution 1 • BSW1 at 13.5kA individual (4x), BSW2,3&4 3.4 kA individual (12x). • Powering solution 2 • BSW1 at 13.5kA individual (4x), BSW2&3 3.4 kA in series (4x), BSW4 3.4 kA individual (4x). • Powering solution 3 • BSW1 power supplies 13.5 kA (4 x), BSW2-4 power supplies 3.4 kA (4 x), Trim power supplies for BSW4 and BSW3 (200A, 8 x). Review follow up on PSB 160 MeV H- injection

  11. Chicane powering (action 5) 3/3 Solution 1 Solution 2 Solution 3 • Powering solution 1: full optics control, Power conv. low development risk, the most voluminous. • Powering solution 2: reduced optics control, Power conv. low development risk, less voluminous w.r.t. solution 1. • Powering solution 3: full optics control, Power conv. increased development risk, least voluminous solution, more complex controls, NEEDS MORE DEVELOPMENT EFFORTS. Possible circuit diagrams Review follow up on PSB 160 MeV H- injection

More Related