Login

114th BLM Thresholds WG meeting (Pb ion, HI, TCTs)

→ Europe/Zurich
865/1-B03 (CERN)

865/1-B03

CERN

12
Show room on map
Belen Maria Salvachua Ferrando (CERN), Daniele Mirarchi (CERN), Sara Morales Vigo (CERN)
114th BLM Thresholds WG meeting (Pb ion, HI, TCTs)
Zoom Meeting ID
69447193390
Host
Sara Morales Vigo
Useful links
Join via phone
Zoom URL
Hide

Participants: Alexandros, Belen, Daniele, Roderik, John, Jorge

Belen's talk

  • First discussions in 2015 -> Scale of thresholds from another family with a material factor
  • Simulations of BLM response for different layout --> Small impact on the BLM orientation (V/H) but large impact on the distance to the beam pipe
  • Thermomechanical simulations --> both cases acceptable
    • 40us 2.13e9 p at 3.5TeV
    • Steady 80 s of 3.13e9/s at 6.8 TeV
  • One more point
  • 0.1Gy/s in BLM equivalent to 2.5kW (3.1kW) power deposition in impacted jaw (deep impact beam loss simulation)
  • Simulation scenarios
    • Halo deep impact and accidental scraping - 0.1 - 20 seconds (3-15kW deposited in jaw)
    • Then asked to include also from 0.01 seconds 
      • For very fast RS, energy deposition up to 300kW also discussed 
  • BLM response calculated from fluka simulations --> to estimate how much we are allowing with the present thresholds 
  • TCT measured BLM response at injection and top energy
  • Some considerations
    • TCTs made on W, 1m, with BPMs, being the least robust collimators
    • Protect triplet aperture, located around the colliding IRs in cell 4
    • BLM layout at TCTs not uniform --> different BLM response 
      • Preparing integration to put BLMs in same positions for all TCT collimators during LS3 for IP1 and IP5
        • Action --> Start discussions to do the same in IP2 and IP8
  • BLM response 
    • Depends on beam loss scenarios
    • Depends on BLM location
    • Could be simulated and measured 
  • Maximum loss rate
    • Validated with maximum energy depositions, temperatures and stresses 
    • Need to be probed for full range of RS times
    • Need to be probed for full range of energy levels 
  • FLUKA simulation of 2 loss scenarios
    • Halo leakage of ions from IR7 to TCTPV (deep impact)
      • Very similar for sixtrack or just larger beam size in fluke 
    • Accidental impact on TCTs (beam scraping)
    • Maximum energy deposition on the case 1a
  • Why different energy deposition on both jaws? (Daniele)
    • Slightly different beam 
    • Very focused impact on one jaw, not really halo of point 7
    • 9mm impact of full gaussian beam, why is it called halo?
    • Roderik remembers that this is a conservative scenario that covers all scenarios
    • Scraping scenario by simulating collimator going towards the beam and recording impacts
  • Allowing case of 3kW 
  • Good agreement between simulations and measurements 
  • Many corrections on top of THRI_TCT model --> thresholds 
  • We want to check the power deposition that is allowed by the master thresholds 
  • BLM thresholds model should cover
    • 32 energy limits
    • 12 RS
    • Damage limits for these ranges are needed
  • 1 pilot at top energy could damage a TCT (fast loss, direct impact)
  • What is the safe energy deposition for RS01-RS06?
  • Is the material of the TCTPX the same? Can the studies we reused? Jaw still W
    • What happens in the jaw is the same, to study what happens between the jaw and the BLM
    • A bit different design, but should not impact much what happens
  • Action --> remeasure BLM response, or resimulate with correct BLM positions 
  • Some TCT thresholds were updated around IP2, due to degraded vacuum conditions higher signal on BLMs
  • One TCT open at one side of ALICE at injection, on one side we dump on 

 

Alexandros' presentation

  • Two scenarios simulated for power deposition on TCTs
  • Model --> two maps with different mesh that are imported from FLUKA to ANSYS
    • Fine mesh for the inermet blocks, where the beam is concentrated
    • Coarse mesh for the full jaw 
  • Case 1a most critical --> larger percentage of the impacting power is deposited to the jaw
  • objective stay below 90MPa
  • 267 degrees a good threshold from thermomechanical point of view 
  • 300kW deposited for 0.1, but temperature in the jaw a bit in the limit, although due to low time, stresses on the pipe still low 
    • Not acceptable case, 0.01 right in the limit
  • Scraping case --> max stress on the pipe acceptable
  • Objective of the talk
    • Check thermomechanical simulations in lower time scales
    • Limit of 250 degrees on the inert blocks 
  • 1kJ acceptable at RS01 and 0.01s 
    • Energy of 10kJ exceeds the temperature limits
      • Already above damage
  • 250 degrees reached at approximately 2.5kJ deposited energy at 40us
    • Not a hard limit on the temperature, to give an order of magnitude 
  • 2.5kJ estimation of limit for low running sums
  • Case 2 extended to RS12
    • Check of structural 
    • Considered acceptable
  • RS01 - RS06 --> Limit of 2.5kJ
  • Safety margin in this 2.5kJ?
    • Yes and no... for the pipes yes, but for the W...
    • Maybe 1.5 safety factor?
  • From test 5e9

 

 

  • What is missing? Fluka simulations to see energy depositions from different particles and energies?
  • Case 1a the worst case scenario 
  • Protons in principle should not we worse than ions 

 

There are minutes attached to this event. Show them.