US LHC Accelerator Research Program

1
US LHC Accelerator Research Program
US LHC Accelerator Research Program

brookhaven - fermilab - berkeley

• Jim Strait, Fermilab
• For BNL-FNAL-LBNL Collaboration
• 1st LAPAC Meeting
• 17-18 June 2002

2
(No Transcript)
3
(No Transcript)
4
US LHC Accelerator Research Program

• The US Hadron Accelerator Community and CERN plan
  to continue the collaboration established for
  the construction of LHC.
• The goals of this program are to
• Extend and improve the performance of the LHC, so
  as to maximize its scientific output.
• Maintain and develop the US labs capabilities,
  so that the US can be the leader in the next
  generation of hadron colliders.
• Serve as a vehicle for US accelerator specialists
  to pursue their research.
• Train future generations of accelerator
  physicists.
• Continue to advance international cooperation on
  large accelerators.
• Fermilab has been appointed the Host Laboratory
  to lead this program.
• CERN management strongly supports our continued
  collaboration.

5
US LHC Accelerator Research Program

• US collaboration on the LHC accelerator is an
  essential component of
• the US HEP program.
• It supports the LHC experiments by helping to
  maximize the LHCs scientific output.
• It builds on the domestic hadron accelerator
  programs.
• It involves us with the state-of-the-art in
  hadron machines, balancing the growing domestic
  emphasis on linear ee colliders.
• It is a cost-effective means to
• Protect our intellectual and physical investment
  in advanced hadron colliders and the technologies
  that make them possible.
• Continue to advance our capabilities, with an eye
  to the next generation very large hadron
  collider.

6
US LHC Accelerator Research ProgramPlanned
Activities

• Our program is organized in four areas of
  research
• Accelerator physics experiments and calculations.
• Understanding performance limitations of current
  IRs and developing new designs.
• Participation in the sector test and machine
  start-up.
• Beam dynamics calculations and experiments.
• Developing high performance magnets for new
  higher luminosity IRs.
• Large-aperture, high gradient quadrupoles using
  Nb3Sn.
• High-field beam separation dipoles and strong
  correctors.
• Developing advanced beam diagnostics and
  instrumentation.
• Commissioning our hardware for the LHC.

7
Interaction Region Development

• The IRs will be among the limiting systems.
  Replacement of the existing quads is a necessary
  route to higher luminosity.
• The existing quadrupoles have a radiation
  lifetime of 6-7 years at design luminosity, and
  we must be prepared to replace them by about
  2014.
• US-CERN-KEK collaboration meeting on IR upgrade
  options was held 11-12 March 2002.
• Presentations available at http//cern.ch/lhc-proj
  -IR-upgrade
• Second meeting is planned for November 2002.
• Several designs for new IRs have been proposed.
• Maintain the existing optical layout, but with
  larger aperture quadrupoles made of Nb3Sn
  superconductor.
• Re-arrange the IR to place a beam separation
  dipole before the quads, which then become
  smaller aperture, twin-bore magnets.

8
LHC Upgrade Study at CERN
Presentation by L. Tavian, CERN
9
US-CERN-KEK Meeting on IR Upgrades
Session Summary by JBS, Fermilab
10
10s beam envelope for b 25 cm
Presentation by T. Sen, Fermilab
11
Presentation by O. Brüning, CERN
12
US-CERN-KEK Meeting on IR Upgrades
Session Summary by JBS, Fermilab
13
US Program on IR Upgrade Magnets

• Goal Development of technologies and prototypes
  of superconducting magnets for high-luminosity
  inner triplets, as part of an upgrade program to
  raise LHC luminosity 1034 ? 1035 cm-2s-1.
• Program focus is on Nb3Sn, large-aperture
  quadrupoles.
• Builds on generic Nb3Sn dipole RD programs.
• Initial program is to develop technologies, not
  specific designs.
• Specific design choices will be made after
  several years of magnet RD and related
  accelerator design studies.
• Not currently part of our program, but necessary
  for upgraded IR
• High-field beam-separation dipoles, required in
  all IR upgrades scenarios under consideration.
• Large-aperture linear and non-linear correction
  magnets will have substantially higher pole-tip
  fields than in the baseline IRs and may become
  quite challenging.
• Nature of collaboration with CERN and KEK still
  being established.

14
US Program on IR Upgrade Magnets

• Program concentrates on quadrupoles for 2nd
  generation IR, but2nd generation IR design is
  not known now.
• AP studies will evaluate various proposed IR
  optics and layouts.
• Magnet RD will develop and evaluate magnet
  designs and technologies.
• Preliminary choices for development of specific
  magnet design(s) will be made 2005.
• Final choice of IR design and magnet design will
  most likely be made after initial LHC operation
  gt 2008.
• Main approach is development of large aperture
  cos 2q quad of conventional design, made with
  Nb3Sn Rutherford cable (WR).
• Alternates to be studied include
• Block-type and race-track coils.
• React-and-wind coils made with small wires and
  cables.
• Cable and conductor RD
• Generic RD continues under DOE Nb3Sn program
  with industry.
• Specific topics relevant to LHC designs are part
  of this program.

15
US Program on IR Upgrade Magnets

• FY 2002-2004 Conceptual Design Studies
• - Establish magnet target parameters (with US
  and CERN AP groups). Aperture, field strength,
  single vs. twin aperture, coil geometry,
• - Develop and compare different design and
  technological approaches for quads, dipoles and
  correctors.
• - Selection of conceptual magnet designs and
  basic technologies.
• FY 2003-2009 Short model RD
• - 70 mm Nb3Sn using existing tooling for
  baseline IR quadrupoles.- Development and coil
  tests of wide, fully keystoned Nb3Sn cable.
• - Investigation of react-and-wind and
  wind-and-react technologies.
• - Relies on continued Nb3Sn development program
  with industry.
• - Models of quad design selected by conceptual
  design studies.
• - Development of large aperture, high-field
  dipoles or correctors depending on
  collaborative interest by CERN and KEK.

16
US Program on IR Upgrade Magnets

• FY 2009-2011 Full-scale prototypes.
• - Final design decisions follow initial LHC
  operational experience.
• - Large-aperture single or twin-aperture quads
  full length in prototype cryostat.- Large-apertu
  re dipoles or correctors (depending on
  collaborative interest by CERN and KEK).
• FY 2011 Final design report.
• - Deliverable complete design package, ready to
  manufacture.
• - Decide who (US, CERN, KEK, industry) builds
  which IR upgrade magnets.
• Cost estimate for this program is being
  developed, based on extensive experience of 3 US
  labs with LHC IR magnets, Nb3Sn RD programs, etc.

17
Accelerator Physics

• A broad range of accelerator physics activities
  are planned.
• Interaction Region studies.
• Performance studies for baseline IR.
• 2nd generation IR designs.
• AP calculations and experiments.
• Beam-beam interaction studies.
• Electron cloud studies.
• Non-linear dynamics.
• Synchrotron radiation in cryo environment.
• Studies of feasibility/applicability of new
  instrumentation methods.
• Phase locked loops.
• Wire compensator for long-range beam-beam
  interaction.
• Electron lens.
• Bunch-by-bunch closed orbit correction.

18
Accelerator Physics

• Machine development.
• Injection test from IR8 to IR6 - 2006.
• Machine start-up and commissioning - 2007-2008.
• Ongoing beam studies and machine development -
  2008
• LHC-relevant machine studies with RHIC and
  Tevatron, in collaboration with CERN.
• Remote data acquisition and (eventually) control
  room.
• Cost is mainly salaries and travel.

19
Instrumentation and Diagnostics

• Development and possible implementation of 2nd
  generation beam
• diagnostics
• Luminosity instrumentation to be installed in IR
  absorbers.
• Allows fast, bunch-by-bunch measurement of
  luminosity, crossing angle, and collision point.
• Provides feedback signal for keeping beams in
  collision.
• RD on fast, high-pressure ionization chamber
  started under construction project.
• Alternate technology also under consideration by
  CERN - decision next year.
• Longitudinal profile monitor.
• Conceptual design studies have begun, in
  collaboration with CERN instrumentation group.
• Phase-locked loops for tune and chromaticity
  control.
• Based on systems currently being developed for
  RHIC.

20
Instrumentation and Diagnostics

• Longer-term ideas, whose feasibility or necessity
  must be demonstrated.
• Electron lens for bunch-by-bunch tune control,
  currently being developed for the Tevatron.
• Bunch-by-bunch closed orbit control and feedback
  system. Necessity for this must be
  experimentally investigated with LHC beam.
• Other advanced feedback systems, to be developed
  as ideas emerge or limitations of LHC become
  known.
• Cost estimates for earlier items can be
  confidently made based on
• specific designs and actual hardware experience.
• Activity on longer-term ideas will not become
  significant until LHC begins
• to operate.

21
Hardware Commissioning

• US responsibility for systems delivered under the
  present construction project ends when CERN
  accepts them (2002-2004).
• We plan, as part of the research program, to
  participate in the commissioning of our equipment
  in the LHC tunnel.
• Serve as consultants to CERN during
  installation of our equipment (2004-2006).
• Full participation in 1st operation of our
  systems - quads, dipoles, feedboxes, absorbers
  (2005-2007).
• Cooldown and powering of magnets.
• Operation of cryogenic control systems.
• Quench protection.
• Vacuum and alignment.
• First beam operation.
• Cost is entirely salaries (physicists and
  engineers) and travel.

22
Cost Estimates and Funding

• We are developing cost estimates for all program
  elements, with a 5 year time horizon, which we
  will update yearly.
• The Program is defined by the science and
  technology to meet the Program goals, and will
  becarried out based on optimal use of resources
  at the three labs.
• We lack specific guidance on funding, but have
  made a reasonable estimate, for planning
  purposes, based on informal discussions with
  DOE.

Preliminary
23
Draft Organization Chart
24
Conclusions

• US collaboration on the LHC accelerator is an
  essential component of the US HEP program.
• Supports CMS and ATLAS by improving LHC
  performance.
• Advances our capabilities in accelerator physics
  and technology.
• The participants at all 3 labs have agreed on the
  scientific program
• Accelerator Physics
• High performance magnets
• Advanced beam instrumentation and diagnostics
• Commissioning of our hardware
• and agreed on the management approach.
• Advice from LAPAC will help refine the scientific
  and technical program.
• Lehman Review is planned for later this summer.

25
Charge to LAPAC

• The initial charge to the Committee will be to
• consider the scientific and technical quality of
  the proposed program
• and
• offer advice as to the relevance, relative
  priorities and appropriate schedules for the
  proposed activities.
• The program will be evaluated with respect to the
  degree to which they support the objectives of
• maximizing the scientific output of the LHC
• and
• contributing to the advancement of the domestic
  US high energy physics and accelerator programs.

26
Charge to LAPAC

• Magnet Program
• Is the range of options for technologies and
  designs too large that is, should we focus more
  strongly on a more limited set of problems?
• If so, which paths look most promising to lead to
  practical quadrupoles for LHC by about 2014?
• Is the time scale for converging on the specific
  design of an IR quad appropriate?
• Accelerator Physics
• Which topics have the potential to make the
  strongest impact on LHC performance.
• Given that many subjects are closely related to
  problems currently being addressed for the
  Tevatron and RHIC, which topics are most
  important to be supported under the LHC research
  program?

27
Charge to LAPAC

• Instrumentation
• Evaluate the program presented with respect to
  the objectives stated as part of the generic
  charge.
• Hardware Commissioning
• Is the proposed level of involvement with
  hardware commissioning about right?
• Should we consider involvement in hardware
  commissioning of LHC systems that we did not
  build?
• To help bring the LHC up as quickly as possible.
• To learn as much as possible from LHC experience.
• If so, what areas are most likely to be
  important to explore?
• Any other observations or comments on any aspect
  of the program
• presented would be welcome.