Fast ADT test: dependency of the simulated energy deposition on the - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
fast adt test dependency of the simulated energy
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Fast ADT test: dependency of the simulated energy deposition on the - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Apr 06, 2023 374 likes •487 views

Fast ADT test: dependency of the simulated energy deposition on the loss distribution N. Shetty, A. Lechner ( on behalf of the FLUKA team ) and with contributions from V. Chetvertkova, A. Priebe Quench-Test Analysis Working Group Meeting

slide-1
SLIDE 1

Fast ADT test: dependency of the simulated energy deposition on the loss distribution

  • N. Shetty, A. Lechner

( on behalf of the FLUKA team ) and with contributions from

  • V. Chetvertkova, A. Priebe

Quench-Test Analysis Working Group Meeting October 18, 2013

1 / 11

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Part 1: Loss distributions from MADX

2 / 11

slide-3
SLIDE 3

PART 1/2: Loss distributions from MADX

Distance from center of MQ.12L6 ( m ) [ Beam2 <----- ]

  • 1.5
  • 1
  • 0.5

0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 protons/m (arbitrary normalization) 50 100 150 200 250

3

10 ×

Comparison of loss distributions

case 73 case 61 case 59

Comparison of loss distributions

Distance from center of MQ.12L6 ( m ) [ Beam2 <----- ] 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 rad) µ xprime ( 50 100 150 200 250 case 73 case 61 case 59

case 73 (most realistic):

◮ Tune was matched ◮ Bump was applied (the

exact order as in experiment)

◮ MQ errors considered

case 61:

◮ Extreme impossible case

  • f third integer tune

◮ Bump was applied

case 59 (base):

◮ Bump was applied ◮ Tune was matched

afterwards, which was not done in the experiment.

3 / 11

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Case 59 (also shown during previous presentation)

Distance from center of MQ.12L6 ( m ) [ Beam2 <----- ]

  • 6
  • 4
  • 2

2 4 6 BLM dose ( mGy ) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Measurement FLUKA

Comparison of Beam-2 BLM Signals (case 59) Source impact ( protons/m ) 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

6

10 × Distance from MQ.12L6 ( cm ) [ Beam2 <----- ]

  • 150
  • 100
  • 50

50 100 150 50 100 150 200 250

)

3

Longitudinal energy density ( mJ/cm

Source impact ( protons/m ) 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

6

10 ×

BLM dose simulation based on the original loss distribution (source) for 8.2×108 protons BLM simulation and measurement agree very well

  • Max. energy density in

MQ.12L6 (until quench) is ∼ 250 mJ/cm3 , for 5×108 protons

4 / 11

slide-5
SLIDE 5

PART 1/2: BLM dose comparison

Distance from center of MQ.12L6 ( m ) [ Beam2 <----- ]

  • 6
  • 4
  • 2

2 4 6 BLM dose ( mGy ) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Measurement FLUKA

Comparison of Beam-2 BLM Signals ( case73 ) Source impact ( protons/m ) 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

6

10 × Distance from center of MQ.12L6 ( m ) [ Beam2 <----- ]

  • 6
  • 4
  • 2

2 4 6 BLM dose ( mGy ) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Measurement FLUKA

Comparison of Beam-2 BLM Signals ( case61 ) Source impact ( protons/m ) 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

6

10 ×

Simulation and measurement agree very well

5 / 11

slide-6
SLIDE 6

PART 1/2: Longitudinal peak energy density

50 100 150 200 250 300

  • 200
  • 150
  • 100
  • 50

50 100 150 mJ / cm3 z ( cm ) [ distance from center of MQ.12L6 ] Longitudinal peak energy density in inner coil (normalized per 5e8 protons) case 59 case 73 case 61

Max energy density in the range of ∼ 250 - 280 mJ/cm3 For case 61, increase in energy density is not proportional to increase in local loss density as the horizontal impact angle is smaller

6 / 11

slide-7
SLIDE 7

Part 2: Loss distributions (artificially stretched)

7 / 11

slide-8
SLIDE 8

PART 2/2: Loss distributions (artificially stretched)

Distance from center of MQ.12L6 ( m ) [ Beam2 <----- ]

  • 1.5
  • 1
  • 0.5

0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 protons/m (arbitrary normalization) 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

  • 6

10 × Comparison of loss distributions (artificially stretched)

case 59 source-stretched-upstream source-stretched-upstream-shifted80cm

Comparison of loss distributions (artificially stretched)

Source length doubled while maintaining the same total intensity Artificial manipulation to study the effect of stretched source on BLM signal and energy density

8 / 11

slide-9
SLIDE 9

PART 2/2: BLM dose comparison (artificially stretched)

Distance from MQ.12L6 ( m ) [ Beam2 <----- ]

  • 6
  • 4
  • 2

2 4 6 BLM dose ( mGy ) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Measurement FLUKA Comparison of Beam-2 BLM Signals ( source-extended-upstream )

Source impact ( protons/m ) 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

6

10 × Distance from MQ.12L6 ( m ) [ Beam2 <----- ]

  • 6
  • 4
  • 2

2 4 6 BLM dose ( mGy ) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Measurement FLUKA

Comparison of Beam-2 BLM Signals ( source-extended-upstream-shifted80cm )

Source impact ( protons/m ) 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

6

10 ×

Still the simulation and measurement agree

9 / 11

slide-10
SLIDE 10

PART 2/2: Longitudinal peak energy density

(artificially stretched)

50 100 150 200 250 300

  • 200
  • 150
  • 100
  • 50

50 100 150 mJ / cm3 z ( cm ) [ distance from center of MQ.12L6 ] Longitudinal peak energy density in inner coil (normalized per 5e8 protons) case 59 source-extended-upstream source-extended-upstream-shifted80cm

Energy density decreases for stretched sources (while no proportional decrease in BLM dose) Max energy density decreases from ∼ 250 mJ/cm3 to ∼ 160 - 170 mJ/cm3

10 / 11

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Conclusions

BLM signal remains more or less the same for different loss distributions (the shower is smeared out at the BLMs because they are located farther laterally) Energy density in the coil is sensitive to the local loss density and horizontal impact angle of the loss distributions (because

  • f the proximity of the coil to the cascade development)

11 / 11