FNAL Optimization Update Laura Fields 11 February 2015 1 Outline - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

FNAL Optimization Update Laura Fields 11 February 2015 1

Outline ✤ Results of three optimizations ✤ Cylindrical Target ✤ Parabolic Horns ✤ Reduced engineering constraints ✤ Further study of 3-horn optimized design w/ NuMI target ✤ Effect of endcap material ✤ Beam simulation news 2

Cylindrical Target Optimization ✤ Last time I showed early results of a cylindrical target optimization: Best fitness: 1.98 Compared to 1.47 reference and 1.97 (NuMI-style target, optimized) 3

Cylindrical Target Optimization ✤ After running a bit more (and having a lot of grid failures): Best fitness: 2.01 Compared to 1.47 reference and 1.97 (NuMI-style target, optimized) 4

NuMI-style Target Optimization ✤ NuMI-style target optimization, for comparison: Best fitness: 1.97 Compared to 1.47 reference 5

Cylindrical Target Optimization Results Parameter Lower Limit Upper Limit Unit Horn A: L A 1000 4500 mm 3717 Horn A: F1 A 1 99 % 51 Horn A: r1 A 20 50 mm 33 Horn A: r2 A 20 200 mm 147 Horn A rOC A 200 650 mm 630 Horn B: L B 2000 4500 mm 2551 Horn B: F1 B 0 100 % 37 Horn B: F2 B 0 100 % 12 Horn B: F3 B 0 100 % 2 Horn B: F4 B 0 100 % 16 Horn B: R1 B 50 200 mm 186 Horn B: R2 B 20 50 mm 47 Horn B: R3 B 50 200 mm 179 Horn B: ROC B 200 650 mm 633 HornB: Z position 2000 17000 mm 5453 Horn C: L C 2000 4500 mm 2694 Horn C: F1 C 0 100 % 30 Horn C: F2 C 0 100 % 21 Horn C: F3 C 0 100 % 2 Horn C: F4 C 0 100 % 9 Horn C: R1 C 50 550 mm 388 Horn C: R2 C 20 50 mm 26 Horn C: R3 C 50 550 mm 306 Horn C: ROC C 550 650 mm 620 Horn C: Z Position 4000 19000 mm 17836 Target Length 0.5 2.0 m 1.98 Beam spot size 1.6 2.5 mm 2.1 Target Radius 9 15 mm 7.8 Proton Energy 60 120 GeV 108 6 Horn Current 150 300 kA 270

NuMI-Style Target Optimization Results Final Optimum Parameter Lower Lim Upper Lim Unit Horn A: L A 1000 4500 mm 2815 Horn A: F1 A 1 99 % 65 Horn A: r1 A 20 50 mm 34 Horn A: r2 A 20 200 mm 145 Final Optimum Horn A rOC A 200 650 mm 630 Horn B: L B 2000 4500 mm 3229 Horn B: F1 B 0 100 % 20 Horn B: F2 B 0 100 % 21 Horn B: F3 B 0 100 % 1 Horn B: F4 B 0 100 % 22 Horn B: R1 B 50 200 mm 191 Horn A Horn B: R2 B 20 50 mm 47 Horn B: R3 B 50 200 mm 204 Horn B: ROC B 200 650 mm 630 HornB: Z position 2000 17000 mm 3637 Horn C: L C 2000 4500 mm 2816 Horn C: F1 C 0 100 % 36 Horn C: F2 C 0 100 % 16 Horn C: F3 C 0 100 % 3 Horn C: F4 C 0 100 % 5 Horn B Horn C: R1 C 50 550 mm 398 Horn C: R2 C 20 50 mm 45 Horn C: R3 C 50 550 mm 310 Horn C: ROC C 550 650 mm 643 Horn C: Z Position 4000 19000 mm 17478 Target Length 0.5 2.0 m 2.00 Beam spot size 1.6 2.5 mm 1.62 Target Fin Width 9 15 mm 13.4 Horn C Proton Energy 60 120 GeV 62 7 Horn Current 150 300 kA 296

Cylindrical Target Optimization Conclusions ✤ Some conclusions ✤ Optimization run with cylindrical target gives slightly better results than NuMI-style ✤ Difference in flux is small, and consistent with what I’ve seen before when I place cylindrical and fin-style target in the same focusing system ✤ One substantial difference between the two optimizations ✤ NuMI-style target is limited by size of target can; cylindrical target is not constrained and can grow larger ✤ Optimized focusing system is very similar for two options. Primary differences (other than target): ✤ Cylindrical target prefers lower horn current and higher proton energy 8

Numi-Style Target w/ Parabolic Horns ✤ Last time I also showed early results from a parabolic horn optimization Best fitness: 1.85 Compared to 1.47 reference and 1.97 (NuMI-style target, conical horns) 9

Numi-Style Target w/ Parabolic Horns ✤ More recent results: It doesn’t look like this is going to do better than the conical horn option Best fitness: 1.89 Compared to 1.47 reference and 1.97 (NuMI-style target, conical horns) 10

Numi-Style Target w/ Relaxed Engineering Constraints ✤ I’m also running an optimization with relaxed engineering constraints — seems to be converging very slowly Allows longer target, longer target chase, larger conductor radii Best fitness: 1.90 Compared to 1.47 reference and 1.97 (NuMI-style target w/ engineering constraints, final optimum) 11

Optimization Next Steps ✤ To do ✤ Debug grid failures which may be affecting speed of optimization ✤ Run an optimization with more realistic IC thicknesses ✤ Tighter constraint on OD radius (due to nickel- plating limitations) ✤ Study optimized fluxes with updated sensitivity calculations 12

Further Study of 3 Horn Option w/ NuMI Target ✤ In past talks, when I’ve described the 3-horn optimized system (NuMI-style target), people have been curious about the importance of the “pinch” in Horn C ✤ The neck radius was constrained to be small < 50 mm, primarily to help the optimization converge a few months ago when separate problems were causing it not to converge ✤ In future runs, I can relax this constraint. But to understand it’s impact, I did a scan of this parameter with a wider range than was used in the optimization

Further Study of 3 Horn Option w/ NuMI Target CP sensitivity is fairly flat vs. horn C neck radius Some small loss in sensitivity above r = ~120 mm

Effect of Endcap Material ✤ For Horns A and B, I use 2 mm inner conductor and endcap thicknesses ✤ We know this is underestimating material ✤ Last November, I presented results of a study that attempted to quantify the effect of more realistic material… 15

Reminder of Material Study ✤ Effect of increasing upstream neck of Horn 1 (in 2- horn optimized design) to 3 mm: This made sense…

Reminder of Material Study ✤ Effect of 6 mm downstream endcap: This was surprising. And indeed, when Paul and I poked further, there was a bug in this simulation…

Updated Material Study ✤ Effect of 45 mm downstream endcap: ~3% flux loss in peak with 4.5 cm endcap (note that this is much thicker than we expect any single endcap to be)

Updated Material Study ✤ Effect of 6 mm downstream endcap: <1% flux loss in peak with 4.5 cm endcap (note that this is much thicker than we expect any single endcap to be)

Updated Material Study ✤ Still to-do: ✤ Study effect of gradually thickening endcap material as radius increases ✤ For technical reasons, I have to remove the water layer to do this, but I think that is okay ✤ Study endcap effect in 3-horn optimized system

Beam Simulation News ✤ As you may have heard, our experiment is called DUNE ✤ A lot of computing stuff still refers to LBNE ✤ The machines known as lbnegpvm0X that many of us use for building and running gl4bnf are being converted to dunegpvm0X ✤ /lbne/data/ and /lbne/app/ mounts have been renamed /dune/data/ and /dune app/ ✤ /pnfs/lbne appears to be available on the dungpvm’s, but you should probably start using /pnfs/dune ✤ Our group name is ‘dune’ instead of ‘lbne’, which means that you can possibly not modify/delete files created on the lbnegpvm’s ✤ I’ve updated the files in g4lbnf/ProductionScripts to deal with all of this ✤ You scan do a git pull to get the new scripts ✤ Let me know if you have problems (test on dunegpvm06-10)

Beam Simulation News ✤ I think we are pretty close to being able to submit g4lbnf jobs to the Open Science Grid ✤ Will give us a lot more grid slots ✤ I’ve installed g4lbnf v3r4p2 in cvmfs (a prerequisite to running on the OSG) ✤ Let me know if you are interested in helping push this forward

The End 23

3 Horn Optimization Results 24

Horn Parameters ✤ Last time I showed preliminary results of a three horn optimization rOC C rOC B rOC A r1 A r1 C r3 C r3 B r1 B r2 A r2 C r2 B F3 B F3 C F1 A F2 B F4 B F1 B F2 C F5 C L A F1 C L B 25 L C