Beam delivery system machine detector interface
1 / 55

Beam Delivery System - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Updated On :

Beam Delivery System / Machine Detector Interface. BDS Area leaders Deepa Angal-Kalinin, Andrei Seryi, Hitoshi Yamamoto ILC MAC meeting, January 10-12, 2007. BDS design optimization and evolution Vancouver => MAC(Sep06) => Valencia => MAC(Jan07) . Configuration changes (CCRs) after Vancouver

Related searches for Beam Delivery System

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Beam Delivery System ' - erling

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Beam delivery system machine detector interface l.jpg

Beam Delivery System / Machine Detector Interface

BDS Area leaders

Deepa Angal-Kalinin, Andrei Seryi, Hitoshi Yamamoto

ILC MAC meeting, January 10-12, 2007

Global Design Effort

Bds design optimization and evolution vancouver mac sep06 valencia mac jan07 l.jpg
BDS design optimization and evolutionVancouver => MAC(Sep06) => Valencia => MAC(Jan07)

  • Configuration changes (CCRs) after Vancouver

    • Baseline configuration to 14/14, single collider hall

    • 5m muon walls instead of 9+18m – CCR approved 23rd Sep

    • On surface detector assembly – CCR approved 2nd Nov

  • Evaluations by WWS, MDI panels & CCB

  • MAC (Sep 06)

  • Further cost optimizations studies

    • Shorter BDS and shorter extraction lines

      • Several optics versions proposed, extraction lines shortened

    • Single IR – evaluation of push-pull

      • Task force charged to report at Valencia

      • CCR submitted 19th Nov, on 23rd Dec CCB issued recommendation for the EC to approve the CCR. The EC approved it last Thursday

Global Design Effort

Vancouver baseline to valencia baseline l.jpg
Vancouver baseline to Valencia baseline

Vancouver baseline



tune-up dump

2mr IR



20mr IR

Two collider halls separated longitudinally by 138m


Valencia baseline

14mr IR

14mr IR

One collider hall

Global Design Effort

Valencia 14 14 baseline conceptual cfs layout l.jpg
Valencia 14/14 baseline. Conceptual CFS layout

muon wall tunnel widening

polarimeter laser borehole

9m shaft for BDS access




beam dump service hall



Global Design Effort

Slide5 l.jpg

CFS designs for two IRs



Global Design Effort

Beam delivery system tunnels l.jpg
Beam Delivery System tunnels

9m shaft for BDS access & service hall

muon wall tunnel widening


beam dump service hall

beam dump and its shield

Global Design Effort

Muon walls l.jpg
Muon walls

  • Purpose:

    • Personnel Protection: Limit dose rates in one IR when beam sent to other IR or to the tune-up beam dump

    • Physics: Reduce the muon background in the detectors

Scheme of a muon wall installed in a tunnel widening which provides passage around the wall

Baseline configuration:

18m and 9m walls in each beamline

Global Design Effort

5m muon walls instead of 9 18m l.jpg
5m muon walls instead of 9+18m

  • Reduction of 18m muon spoilers to 5m and elimination of 9m muon spoilers – CCR submitted 8th September

  • Considered that

    • The estimation of 0.1% beam halo population is conservative and such high amount is not supported by any simulations

    • The minimum muon wall required for personnel protection is 5m

    • Detector can tolerate higher muon flux

    • Cost of long muon spoilers is substantial, dominated by material cost and thus approximately proportional to the muon wall length

  • The caverns will be built for full length walls, allowing upgrade if higher muons flux would be measured

  • MDI panel accepted this change

  • CCB approved this request on 23rd September; contingent upon continuation of detailed detector studies to ensure that the occupancy due to muons does not affect the high precision physics measurements

Global Design Effort

Slide9 l.jpg

On-surface assembly : CMS approach

  • CMS assembly approach

  • Assembled on the surface in parallel with underground work

  • Allows pre-commissioning before lowering

  • Lowering using dedicated heavy lifting equipment

  • Potential for big time saving

  • Reduces size of required underground hall

Global Design Effort

On surface detector assembly ccr l.jpg
On-surface detector assembly CCR

  • According to tentative CF&S schedule worked out by M. Gastal, CERN, the detector hall is ready for detector assembly after 4y11m after project start

    • If so, cannot fit into the goal of “7years until first beam” and “8years until physics run”

  • Surface assembly allows to save 2-2.5 years and allows to fit into this goal

    • The collider hall size may be smaller (~40-50%) in this case

    • A building on surface is needed, but savings may be still substantial

  • Discussing possible variations :

    • pure CMS assembly (config B)

    • modified CMS assembly (config A)

      • Assemble smaller (than CMS) pieces on surface, lower down and perform final assembly underground

      • May affect schedule (?), but preliminary looks by a small bit less expensive than “B”

  • The change request not intended to specify all the details for the schedule, hall sizes, capacity of cranes etc.

    • Such optimisation is being done in details by BDS, CF&S and Detector concept groups.

  • CCB approved this CCR on 2nd November.

Global Design Effort

Cern lhc ilc engineering forum participation by mdi members oct 12 13 l.jpg
CERN LHC-ILC engineering forum Participation by MDI members (Oct. 12,13)

  • Tour of ATLAS, CMS and ALICE

  • Presentations on:

    • Radiation protection issues

    • CMS services

    • ATLAS installation

    • CMS installation + infrastructure

    • ILC MDI :present status and understanding – H. Yamamoto and A. Seryi

    • Assembly and installation of an ILC detector – N. Meyners

  • Extremely useful information from CERN colleagues based on real experience.

Global Design Effort

Optimizing the design and tweaking it to understand its position w r to the optimum l.jpg
Optimizing the design and tweaking it to understand its position the optimum

  • Since Vancouver, incorporated other cost saving changes

    • redesigned tail folding octupoles, final doublet, refined vacuum requirements, redesigned CFS tunnels, changed design of water and air cooling systems, decimated bends, removed any spares and overheads, scrutinized all tech area for cost savings, etc.

  • Other design optimization studies that were performed, but were not included, as not giving performance improvement and/or cost savings

    • studied shorter BDS or its subsystems

    • studied lowering power of tune-up dumps

    • studied replacing magnetized “muon walls” with magnetized muon doughnuts

Global Design Effort

Single ir questions l.jpg
Single IR questions position the optimum

  • GDE suggested evaluation of push-pull at the end of September.

  • Questions to be evaluated

    • Organizational and historical questions

    • Accelerator design questions

    • Detector design questions

    • Engineering integration questions

  • Detailed list of questions to be studied developed:

  • Technical evaluation of push-pull option by an extended task force, which include more than 60 detector and accelerator experts from ILC community and beyond. Detailed summary presented at Valencia.

  • Conclusions from task force: should be feasible, provided careful design and sufficient R&D resources

  • Conclusions from detector concept groups: do not see show stoppers, detailed engineering design studies are needed to give confidence, in meantime would like to see two IR option kept as an alternative

  • WWS comments : H. Yamamoto (next talk)

Global Design Effort

Slide14 l.jpg

Single IR BDS (version 2006e) position the optimum



  • Upgrade to 1 TeV CM involves adding magnets only … no geometry changes

  • Total BDS Z-length is 4452 m (2 IRs:5100m)

  • Removed dedicated energy error dianostics (MPS) and replaced with polarimeter chicane (some issues)

hybrid “BSY” (x 2)

14 mrad ILC FF9 hybrid (x 2)


14 mrad

ΔZ ~ -650 m w.r.t. ILC2006c

2226 m

14 mrad (L* = 5.5 m) dump lines

M. Woodley et al

Global Design Effort

Bds with single ir l.jpg
BDS with single IR position the optimum








14mr IR

Tune-up dump


Global Design Effort

Slide16 l.jpg

betatron position the optimum





skew correction /

emittance diagnostic


























Global Design Effort

Slide17 l.jpg

500GeV => 1TeV CM upgrade in BSY of 2006e position the optimum

“Type B” (×4)








~0.5 m

Magnets and kickers are added in energy upgrade

M. Woodley et al

Global Design Effort

Single ir bds optics 2006e l.jpg
Single IR BDS optics (2006e) position the optimum








Global Design Effort

Concept of single ir final doublet l.jpg
Concept of single IR Final Doublet position the optimum

vacuum connection & feedback kicker

common stationary







Original FD and redesigned for push-pull (BNL)

Redesigned FD

Global Design Effort

Ir magnets l.jpg
IR magnets position the optimum

BNL prototype of sextupole-octupole magnet

BNL prototype of self shielded quad

cancellation of the external field with a shield coil has been successfully demonstrated at BNL

Global Design Effort

New optics for extraction fd push pull compatible l.jpg
New optics for extraction FD : position the optimumpush pull compatible

  • Rearranged extraction quads are shown. Optics performance is very similar.

  • Both the incoming FD and extraction quads are optimized for 500GeV CM.

  • In 1TeV upgrade would replace (as was always planned) the entire FD with in- and outgoing magnets. In this upgrade, the location of break-point may slightly move out. (The considered hall width is sufficient to accommodate this).

Nominal scheme

Push-pull scheme

B.Parker, Y.Nosochkov et al.

Global Design Effort

Extraction lines shortened by 100m l.jpg
Extraction Lines : shortened by 100m position the optimum

For undisrupted beam reliance on beam sweeping on beam dump window using kickers.

high L parameters

(500 GeV CM)

Total loss before and at collimators for High L parameters is within acceptable levels.

Losses for the nominal case are negligible.

Global Design Effort

Concept of single ir with two detectors l.jpg
Concept of single IR with two detectors position the optimum



The concept is evolving and details being worked out

may be accessible during run



accessible during run

Platform for electronic and services (~10*8*8m). Shielded (~0.5m of concrete) from five sides. Moves with detector. Also provide vibration isolation.

Global Design Effort

Detector systems connections l.jpg
Detector systems connections position the optimum

detector service platform or mounted on detector


low V DC for


high V AC

4K LHe for solenoids

low V PS

high I PS

electronic racks

4K cryo-system

2K cryo-system

gas system

2K LHe for FD

high P room T He

supply & return





high I DC for


chilled water

for electronics

high I DC for FD

gas for TPC

fiber data I/O

electronics I/O

fixed connections

long flexible connections

move together

Global Design Effort

Push pull cryo configuration l.jpg
Push-pull cryo configuration position the optimum

Optimized for fast switch of detectors in push-pull and fast opening on beamline

QD0 part

QF1 part

This scheme require lengthening L* to 4.5m and increase of the inner FD drift

Opening of detectors on the beamline (for quick fixes) may need to be limited to a smaller opening than what could be done in off-beamline position


central part

Global Design Effort

Shielding the ir hall l.jpg
Shielding the IR hall position the optimum


Self-shielding of GLD

Shielding the “4th“ with walls

Global Design Effort

Working progress on ir design l.jpg
Working progress on IR design… position the optimum

Mobile Shield Wall

Illustration of ongoing work… Designs are tentative & evolving

Structural Rib

3m Thickness



Mobile Platform

20m x 30m

Electronics/Cryo Shack

1m Shielded

25m Height

9m Base

John Amann

Global Design Effort

Cfs layout for single ir central dr l.jpg
CFS layout for single IR & central DR position the optimum

Global Design Effort

Slide29 l.jpg

CFS layout for single IR position the optimum

Global Design Effort

Single ir push pull schedule l.jpg
Single IR – push pull schedule position the optimum

  • The hardware can be designed to be compatible with a ~one day move, and this can be a design goal

    • Need to study cost and reliability versus the move duration

    • Need to study regulations in each regions

  • A.Yamamoto presented a scheme (which includes warming-up the cold-box and disconnecting room T lines) and give an estimation of one week (many other tasks can be done in parallel with cryo work), which can serve as conservative boundary of the range

  • Recalibration (at Z) may or may not be needed, and may be independent on push-pull – to be studied

  • BDS group will study the range between one day and one week and optimize the design versus cost, performance, reliability, etc.

Global Design Effort

Single ir push pull cost l.jpg
Single IR, push-pull : cost position the optimum

  • Cost difference of two IR versus single IR push-pull as reported to CCB on Dec.15 (based on Valencia wbs):

    • baseline 14/14: 100%

    • estimate for single p-p IR: 69.1%, with further updates 67.6%

  • Estimation of saving, in Value cost, is 31-32% of BDS cost

  • Using single push-pull IR saves about one third of two IR BDS cost, or in other words the two IR BDS is by about 50% more expensive than single push-pull IR BDS

  • Estimation of additional hardware that is needed to make push-pull feasible is small fraction of the savings

Global Design Effort

From summary of ccb response on single ir push pull l.jpg
From summary of CCB response on Single IR push-pull position the optimum

  • “CCB agrees that .. CCR … qualifies as Class-2. Consequently, CCB assumes that its role … is to make recommendation to EC … rather than to make a decision.

  • CCB recommends EC … to accept CCR#23, whereby incorporating the "1IR with two detectors push-pull" as Baseline Configuration.

  • CCB recommends EC to maintain the previous Baseline with "2IR, single hall, two detectors" as part of Alternative Configuration.

  • CCB recommends EC to reinforce a taskforce on Machine-Detector-Interface issues. The taskforce should be specifically charged … to facilitate pertinent design development efforts and discussions on relevant executive matters.”

Global Design Effort

Briefly on other systems l.jpg
Briefly on other systems position the optimum

  • Magnets and PS

  • Vacuum system

  • Crab cavities

  • Beam dumps & collimators

  • IR hall, surface buildings & cranes

Global Design Effort

Magnets and ps l.jpg
Magnets and PS position the optimum

  • Most of the magnets are rather standard, but require good magnetic and mechanical stability

  • All PS are high availability design, stability in several ppm range (building ~40 PS for ATF2 now)

  • PS are placed in the service tunnel, cable penetrations are every 100m, which reduces heat load in the tunnel helping thermal and mechanical stability

  • All BDS magnets in incoming beamlines except bends are on movers with 50nm step

  • Special magnets except FD and first extraction quads:

    • SC tail folding octupoles (BNL design)

    • beam sweepers

    • Kickers with option of DC bends

    • Antisolenoids embedded in the detector

    • Detector integrated dipoles (part of detector solenoid)

    • Magnetized muon walls

Global Design Effort

Vacuum system l.jpg
Vacuum system position the optimum

  • Material choice

    • is defined by the resistive wall effects for off-centered bunch: preserving the beam emittance discourage use of SS chambers

    • Considered Al version and Cu plated SS chambers. Chosen the latter as more reliable, keeping Al for backup option. Chambers in the places where SR is expected (e.g. chicanes) are Cu

  • Vacuum pressure

    • determined by the need to minimize background due to beam-gas.

    • Need 1nTorr in ~200m upstream of IP (may need in situ baking), ~10nTorr in 200-800m and ~50nTorr in the rest of the system

Global Design Effort

Crab cavities l.jpg
Crab cavities position the optimum

  • BDS has two SC 9-cell cavities located ~13 m upstream of the IP operated at 5MV/m peak deflection.

  • Based on a Fermilab design for a 3.9GHz TM110 mode 13-cell cavity.

  • The uncorrelated phase jitter between the positron and electron crab cavities must be controlled to 61 fsec to maintain optimized collisions.

  • A proof-of-principle test of a 7 cell 1.5GHz cavity at the JLab ERL facility has achieved a 37 fsec level of control.

  • Other key issues to be addressed are LLRF control and higher-order mode damping.

  • Top: earlier prototype of 3.9GHz deflecting (crab) cavity designed and build by Fermilab. This cavity did not have all the needed high and low order mode couplers.

  • Bottom: Cavity modeled in Omega3P, to optimize design of the LOM, HOM and input couplers.FNAL T. Khabibouline et al., SLAC K.Ko et al.

  • Design is being continued by UK-US team

3.9GHz cavity achieved 7.5 MV/m

Global Design Effort

18mw water dump design features l.jpg
18MW Water Dump design features position the optimum

BDS features

  • Optics & drift to increase undisrupted beam spot size on window

  • Raster beam in 30mm radius circle in 1 ms; interlock to MPS

  • Hi-power donut collimators to protect vessel window


  • 6.5m (18X0) water followed by 1m water-cooled Cu (22X0)

  • 1.5m diameter with vortex flow water, v=1.0-1.5 m/s , at r=30cm

  • 10 atm to prevent boiling

  • 30 cm diameter 1mm Ti vessel window with water cooling nozzles

    Rad water system

  • 2300 gpm three loop water system

  • 18 MW heat exchanger & ~400HP of pumps per loop

  • Catalytic H2-O2 recombiner

  • Mixed bed ion exchange column to filter 7Be

  • Containment for tritiated water


  • 50cm Fe + 150cm concrete ‘local’ protection for personnel & beamlines

  • 200cm site dependent to protect ground water

Global Design Effort

18mw dump design l.jpg
18MW Dump design position the optimum

  • Two companies: Fichtner & Framatome, design and cost estimate for TESLA TDR

  • Fichtner design for TESLA reworked by RAL

  • Taken into account recent RAL experience with industry

  • RAL design included additions for window remote handling, air exchange and control, air drying and recovery, etc.

Global Design Effort

Ir surface area l.jpg
IR surface area position the optimum

Global Design Effort

Included in ir hall and surface buildings l.jpg
Included in IR hall and surface buildings: position the optimum

  • IR halls:

    • finished civil engineering works, plus

    • movable concrete intermediate shielding wall in two parts (on air pads)

    • steel platforms with staircases and all fittings

    • two 1.6t elevators between steel platforms plus two 2.8t in shafts,

    • steel plates on the floor of the Hall

    • one 400t and two 20t overhead cranes in Hall

    • etc…

  • Included in surface assembly building:

    • 400t and 20t overhead cranes

  • Requirements for detector assembly are different (table on the next slide). Since we cannot tell now which detectors will be used, assumed Configuration A

  • This choice can suite some detectors better than other (one size does not fit all) and is the reason for concerns

  • Further adjustments of IR hall and surface building are needed, and detector colleagues should be more deeply involved in this design and also cost optimization

Global Design Effort

Table of ir assumptions l.jpg
Table of IR assumptions position the optimum

continued …

Global Design Effort

Summary l.jpg
Summary position the optimum

  • Several configuration changes since Vancouver to Valencia and final RDR version.

  • Single IR with two complementary detectors in push-pull configuration has been recommended by CCB to EC as a baseline for the RDR. The EC approved it last Thursday

  • This configuration gives 30% saving compared to two IR 14/14 mrad configuration.

  • Single IR BDS optics design allows upgrade to 1 TeV in the same tunnel.

  • The on surface detector assembly will save 2-2.5 years and has been accepted by the MDI panel.

  • The engineering details will be carried out in the EDR phase.

Global Design Effort

Backup slides l.jpg
Backup slides position the optimum

Global Design Effort

Slide44 l.jpg

500 GeV cm position the optimum

1 TeV cm

Global Design Effort

Slide45 l.jpg

… continued … position the optimum

Global Design Effort

Power cooling in bds l.jpg
Power & cooling in BDS position the optimum

Table as of Valencia, 1TeV CM, two IR.

Table is as of 11/26/2006

9.768 + 0.862 + 2*18 MW => Power from Magnets, PS & Dumps to LCW

0.726 MW => Cables to Air=> approximately 60W/m in average

0.712 MW => PS to Air => taken out by Chilled water

Global Design Effort

Cost breakdown for single ir l.jpg
Cost breakdown for single IR position the optimum

(Labor person-hours, such as installation, was converted to dollars to produce this chart)

Global Design Effort

Slide48 l.jpg

Beam Dump Vessel position the optimum

Global Design Effort

Slide49 l.jpg

Beam Dump Service Cavern Layout position the optimum

Global Design Effort

Slide50 l.jpg

If detector does not provide any radiation protection: position the optimum

18MW loss on Cu target 9r.l \at s=-8m.

No Pacman, no detector. Concrete wall at 10m.

Dose rate in mrem/hr.

  • For 36MW maximum credible incident, the concrete wall at 10m from beamline should be ~3.1m


25 rem/hr


Alberto Fasso et al

Global Design Effort

Ir hall radiation safety criteria l.jpg
IR hall radiation safety criteria position the optimum

  • BDS produces and uses “ILC radiation guidance document”

    • beam containment policies and devices, conditions for occupancy

    • For IR region, in particular, defines

      • Normal operation: dose less than 0.05 mrem/hr (integrated less than 0.1 rem in a year with 2000 hr/year)

        • allows non-rad workers in IR hall

      • Accidents: dose less than 25rem/hr and integrated less than 0.1 rem for 36MW of maximum credible incident (MCI)

Global Design Effort

Slide52 l.jpg

Detector sizes & opening on beamline position the optimum


SiD (opened)


Since opening of detectors on the beamline is intended only for quick fixes, the required width for opening may be smaller that for opening off-beamline

Global Design Effort

Slide53 l.jpg

FD with L*=4.5m & lengthened warm drift section by +0.7m position the optimum

Detector opened on beamline (GLD opening reduced to 1.5m) still leaves 0.5m of not-overlapped space for config.C

Global Design Effort

Instrumentation l.jpg
Instrumentation position the optimum

  • Laser wire

  • Deflecting cavity Y-T

  • Loss monitors ion chamber & PMT

  • Cav BPM C-band, S-band, L-band

  • Stripline or button bpm

  • X sync light tr. profile imager


  • Current monitors

  • Pickup phase monitors

  • Feedbacks

  • Polarimeter laser upstream & downstream

  • E-spectrometer

Global Design Effort

Ir coupling compensation l.jpg
IR coupling compensation position the optimum

When detector solenoid overlaps QD0, coupling between y & x’ and y & E causes large (30 – 190 times) increase of IP size (green=detector solenoid OFF, red=ON)

without compensation sy/ sy(0)=32

Even though traditional use of skew quads could reduce the effect, the local compensation of the fringe field (with a little skew tuning) is the most efficient way to ensure correction over wide range of beam energies




with compensation by antisolenoidsy/ sy(0)<1.01

Global Design Effort