LARP Status

1
LARP Status IssuesSteve Peggs

• State of LARP
• - Mission, org chart, budget
• Accelerator Systems
• - Commissioning (various), outreach, IR
  upgrade
• Magnet Systems
• - CERN LAPAC comments
• - Quadrupole RD paths, dipole first D1
• Collaboration organization
• - Calendar, publications, membership,
• Summary Napa goals

Mirrors http//www.rhichome.bnl.gov/LARP
http//www-td.fnal.gov/LHC/USLARP.html
2
Mission Statement (elevator version)
1) To help make more luminosity, earlier 2) To
collaborate in an interaction region upgrade to
make even more luminosity, later 3) To use,
develop, and preserve unique U.S. resources and
capabilities (physicists, engineers,
infrastructure) Outreach needed, to our own
communities ATLAS, CMS, ILC, demonstrating
how LARP helps them
3
Organization Chart
4
Budget profile April 2004
After adding Phase II collimator RD (SLAC) This
11 M guidance for FY06 still holds good
5
FY05 budget Sept 04
6
FY05 budget Oct 04 DRAFT
7
(No Transcript)
8
Accelerator System milestones - 1
9
AS milestones - 2
10
AS milestones - 3
11
Installation Commissioning Schedule
A major realistic LHC re-scheduling is going on
The consequence (of the QRL problem) on the
schedule will only be clearly assessed when
installation restarts (Nov 1) and is running
smoothly Lyn Evans, HEPAP 9/30/04 This impacts
Hardware Commissioning planning (for U.S. built
deliverables from the construction program)
and squeezes pre-beam system integration
commissioning, especially if first beam is held
to May 2007
12
System Integration Commissioning (1)
Biggest worry is the enormous job of hardware
commissioning Lyn Evans, HEPAP,
9/30/04 Example getting LHC to ramp at full
speed, with fully synchronized sub-systems (800
power supplies, quench protection, cryo, vacuum,
control systems?) Is this a good example? LHC
seeks a nucleus of experience people from U.S.
labs, with critical engineering skills - at the
interface of the magnet, cryogenic, and quench
protection systems? Roberto Saban has a clear
statement of required resources to be presented
and discussed at Napa This is clearly within the
LARP mission
13
System Integration Commissioning (2)
BNL and FNAL directorates have expressed
unambiguous support for a LARP role in System
Integration Commissioning (pre-beam) Funding
from inside the present LARP budget is
challenging ... Where are the experts - BD, TD,
C-AD, . ? As with Beam Commissioning, we must
begin to name names
14
Interaction Region Upgrade
Quad or Dipole first? 120 parasitic long range
beam-beam collisions give a challenging problem
at higher beam intensities. Dipole first layout
reduces long-range Beam-Beam interactions
BUT Larger ß at fixed ßmax Higher energy
deposition in D1 from charged particles There are
other ways to handle BB?
15
Ruggiero et al, EPAC - 1
A factor of 2 luminosity improvement can be
accomplished by pushing NbTi technology. Nb3Sn
technology - appears to be the only candidate
for a more substantial improvement - could open
upgrade scenarios such as 'dipole-first' Import
ant issues related to long Nb3Sn magnets need to
be addressed by vigorous RD The choice of the
coil aperture is driven more the power density
limit than by the beam acceptance! An estimate
of the radiation parameters of the magnets
requires extensive simulations based on detailed
knowledge
16
Ruggiero et al, EPAC - 2
The small bore (twin aperture quadrupole) layout
permits - large crossing angles with
superbunches or crab cavities - or the
'dipole-first' option The effective Nb3Sn
filament diameter (100 m) is too large
(Material development required.) Coil thermal
stability arguments favor superfluid helium
cooling (1.9 K) - NbTi cable has significant
helium porosity - Nb3Sn cable to date is fully
impregnated
17
LAPAC suggests that the main issue is
demonstration that (Nb3Sn) quads can be made in
both long and short lengths. ... demonstration
of a working long quadrupole, the first of its
kind in the world, will be a key element in the
decision to start the LHC luminosity
upgrade. (Dipole) work is focused on the
dipole first scenario, which must meet the most
severe requirements an open mid-plane design
15 T, 10 m Since the new IR layout is not
known, recommend against going further than
to deliver a low cost and simple (dipole)
demonstration model We dont necessarily
agree fully, but the comments are telling
18
Both paths have strengths weaknesses in going
long (incapacity of brittle Nb3Sn to support
pre-stress) Optimum design may involve one or
both technologies
19
Racetrack coils Cosine theta coils
Both configurations have strengths weaknesses
How many kW of irradiated power? What IR
layout? Need real beam experience, even with an
2012 upgrade For now, opticians can assume G x A
constant ?
20
Dipole first layout separation dipole
A dipole first IR requires a dedicated D1 design
that 1) Doesn't quench with 8 kW of energy
deposition, with high field and adequate field
quality 2) Manage the heat load in a
cryogenically friendly fashion 4K
There are potential benefits to the open
mid-plane approach
21
Separation dipole D1
At Napa - compare a revised open midplane
separation dipole with a cos theta dipole
- present radiation heating calculations
- discuss whether to continue with a separation
dipole design study If no, document work by
end of CY04 Separation dipole review at BNL in
December
22
Outreach - Tevatron cf LHC
23
Kinetic energy - 1 small aircaft carrier of 104
tonnes going 30 kph - 450 automobiles of 2
tonnes going 100 kph Chemical energy - 80 kg of
TNT - 70 kg of (swiss?) chocolate Thermal
energy - melt 500 kg of copper - raise 1 cubic
meter of water 85 C a tonne of tea
24
Outreach - snapback transients
Vortex currents circulate quantum fluxoids pinned
in a Type II SC filament A quadratic fluxoid
density gradient drives a current gradient
... Like eddy currents, persistent currents -
depend on the external field history - decay
(SLOWLY) with time - unwind with vicious
transients!
25
Calendar
2004 Nov 8-11 CARE "Beam Dynamics in Future
Hadron Colliders ..", CERN Nov 13-16 International
Linear Collider workshop SC meeting, KEK Nov
?? Luminometer Technical and Cost review,
LBNL Dec 1- 2 CARE "Beam current msmts fast
lifetime calculations", Lyon Dec 15 Quarterly
Report deadline Dec ?? Abort Gap Monitor
engineering feasibility study white
paper Dec ?? Dipole Design Feasibility review,
BNL 2005 Jan ?? Tune Feedback workshop, BNL (2
days) Jan 17-21 ? "Chamonix 05",
CERN Jan 31 Define LARP Beam Comm/LHCOP
integrated plan Feb ?? Tune Feedback Cost and
Technical Review, BNL Mar 8-10 ? LARP
collaboration meeting 4, near FNAL Mar 15 Quarterl
y Report deadline Apr ?? Phase II Collimators
Go/No Go decision May 16-20 Particle Accelerator
Conference, PAC05, Knoxville Jun ?? LARP
Advisory Committee, LARPAC, FNAL Sep 19-23 Magnet
Technology MT-19, Genova Oct ?? LARP
collaboration meeting 5, near BNL
26
Organization
Hypothesis LARP is similar to an HEP
experiment If so, need to establish rules
for - collaboration membership - journal
conference publications - author listings -
speaker invitations Also need to establish -
internal technical notes - fixed terms for some
positions - internal technical review
mechanisms Discussion comments?
27
Summary Accelerator Systems

• 1) Finalize Task Sheets for FY05, develop those
  for FY06
• 2) Re-evaluate milestones, especially those
  imminent for instrumentation
• 3) Stabilize the definition of Phase II
  Collimator RD task
• Commissioning tasks/organization/scope need
  re-consideration
• Begin naming names (commissioning)
• Discuss and evaluate potential new tasks eg
  future instrumentation
• Chart a road map for IR layout resolution

28
Summary Superconducting Magnets
1) The program MUST be mature and unified, or
2) Task sheets and milestones 3) Relationship
of LARP program and base program - Develop
technology for future U.S. machines (BROAD) -
Focused to meet LHC upgrade in 2012 (NARROW) 4)
Mechanisms for collaborative internal technical
decisions 5) Can long Nb3Sn magnets be built? 6)
Integrate energy deposition heat removal
analyses
29
Summary - General
1) Outreach to our own communities ATLAS,
CMS, ILC 2) Retain an open door policy to
potential additional tasks even though the
hurdle is very high 3) Seek to understand the
complementary(?) role of CARE 4) Uncertain
schedule affects planning, directly and
indirectly 5) Addtitional DoE reporting/reviewing
is coming 6) Organize LARP like an HEP
experiment, for the same reasons?