overview of lhc machine upgrade plans from an lhcb perspective n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Overview of LHC Machine Upgrade Plans from an LHCb Perspective - PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Overview of LHC Machine Upgrade Plans from an LHCb Perspective -

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 33

Overview of LHC Machine Upgrade Plans from an LHCb Perspective - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 171 Views
  • Uploaded on

Overview of LHC Machine Upgrade Plans from an LHCb Perspective - . Frank Zimmermann LHCb Upgrade Meeting CERN, 5 August 2008. We acknowledge the support of the European Community-Research Infrastructure Activity under the FP6

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

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Overview of LHC Machine Upgrade Plans from an LHCb Perspective -' - melosa


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
overview of lhc machine upgrade plans from an lhcb perspective

Overview of LHC Machine Upgrade Plans from an LHCb Perspective-

Frank Zimmermann

LHCb Upgrade Meeting

CERN, 5 August 2008

We acknowledge the support of the European Community-Research Infrastructure Activity under the FP6

"Structuring the European Research Area" programme (CARE, contract number RII3-CT-2003-506395)

outline
outline
  • (1) general LHC upgrade plan
  • (2) shutdown plans for the machine, i.e. time- windows with longer than normal shutdown detector access
  • (3) luminosity scenarios in point 8 after phase 2 (“and maybe phase 1 - if there is a change?”).
two strong reasons for lhc upgrade
Two Strong Reasons for LHC Upgrade

J. Strait 2003

hypothetical luminosity

evolution

1) after few years, statistical error hardly decreases

2) radiation damage limit of IR quadrupoles(~700 fb-1) reached by ~2016

 time for an upgrade! 3) extending physics potential!

slide5

staged approach to LHC upgrade

“phase-1” 2013:

new triplets, D1, TAS, b*=0.25 m in IP1 & 5,

reliable LHC operation at ~2-3x luminosity;

beam from new Linac4

“phase-2” 2017:

target luminosity 10x nominal,

possibly Nb3Sn triplet & b*~0.15 m

complementary measures 2010-2017:

e.g. long-range beam-beam compensation,

crab cavities, new/upgraded injectors, advanced

collimators, coherent e- cooling??, e- lenses??

longer term (2020?): energy upgrade, LHeC,…

+ injector

upgrade

phase-2 might be just phase-1 plus complementary measures

slide6

constraint crossing angle

“Piwinski angle”

qc/2

luminosity reduction factor

nominalLHC

effective beam

size s→s/Rf

other constraints:

beam-beam

e- cloud

collimation

slide7

LHC upgrade paths for IP1 & 5

early separation (ES)

full crab crossing (FCC)

L. Evans,

W. Scandale,

F. Zimmermann

J.-P. Koutchouk

stronger triplet

magnets

stronger triplet

magnets

D0 dipole

small-angle

crab cavity

small-angle

crab cavity

  • ultimate beam (1.7x1011 protons/bunch, 25 spacing), b* ~10 cm
  • early-separation dipoles in side detectors , crab cavities
  • → hardware inside ATLAS & CMS detectors,
  • first hadron crab cavities; off-d b
  • ultimate LHC beam (1.7x1011 protons/bunch, 25 spacing)
  • b* ~10 cm
  • crab cavities with 60% higher voltage
  • → first hadron crab cavities, off-d b-beat

larger-aperture triplet magnets

large Piwinski

angle (LPA)

  • 50 ns spacing, longer & more intense bunches
  • (5x1011 protons/bunch)
  • b*~25 cm, no elements inside detectors
  • long-range beam-beam wire compensation
  • → novel operating regime for hadron colliders, beam generation

wire

compensator

F. Ruggiero,

W. Scandale.

F. Zimmermann

slide8

large Piwinski angle (LPA)

full crab crossing (FCC)

early separation (ES)

slide9

luminosity leveling

initial luminosity

peak may not

be useful for

physics

(set up &

tuning?)

ES or

FCC

LPA

experiments prefer ~constant luminosity, less pile up at start of run, higher luminosity at end

average

luminosity

how can we achieve this?

ES or FCC: dynamic b squeeze, or dynamic q change (either IP angle bumps or varying crab voltage)

LPA: dynamic b squeeze, or dynamic change of bunch length

reasons for injector upgrade
reasons for injector upgrade
  • Need for reliability:
    • Accelerators are old [Linac2: 1978, PSB: 1975, PS: 1959, SPS: 1976]
    • They operate far from their design parameters and close to hardware limits
    • The infrastructure has suffered from the concentration of resources on LHC during the past 10 years
  • Need for better beam characteristics

Roland Garoby, LHCC 1July ‘08

present and future injectors
present and future injectors

Proton flux / Beam power

Linac4

Linac2

50 MeV

160 MeV

(LP)SPL

PSB

1.4 GeV

4 GeV

(LP)SPL: (Low Power) Superconducting Proton Linac (4-5 GeV)

PS2: High Energy PS

(~ 5 to 50 GeV – 0.3 Hz)

SPS+: Superconducting SPS

(50 to1000 GeV)

SLHC: “Superluminosity” LHC

(up to 1035 cm-2s-1)

DLHC: “Double energy” LHC

(1 to ~14 TeV)

PS

26 GeV

PS2

50 GeV

Output energy

SPS

SPS+

450 GeV

1 TeV

LHC /

SLHC

DLHC

7 TeV

~ 14 TeV

Roland Garoby, LHCC 1July ‘08

layout of the new injectors
layout of the new injectors

SPS

PS2

SPL

PS

Linac4

R. Garoby, CARE-HHH BEAM07, October’07; L. Evans, LHCC, 20 Feb ‘08

injector upgrade schedule synchronized with lhc ir upgrades
injector upgrade schedulesynchronized with LHC IR upgrades

R. Garoby,

LHCC 1 July 2008

LHC IR phase 1

LHC IR

phase 2

staged upgrade peak luminosity in ips 1 5 vs year
staged upgrade: peak luminosity in IPs 1 & 5 vs year

new injectors + IR upgrade phase 2

linac4 + IR upgrade phase 1

Roland Garoby, LHCC 1July ‘08

early operation

extended shutdowns:

2012/13 & 2017

collimationphase 2

r egular annual shutdown
regular annual shutdown

minimum duration of the annual accelerator shutdown

(analysis for 2007 by Simon Baird,ATC mtg. 4 May‘07)

basic  needs:

  • 6 weeks for mandatory maintenance (legal obligation),
  • 3 weeks for hardware tests/cold check-out,
  • 3 weeks for setting-up of the accelerators,
  • adding up to incompressible minimumduration of 12 weeks
  • of interruptionof LHC beam every year, without any major
  • intervention/modification

information from R. Garoby

t ime slots with 6 months access
time slots with >6 months access

in present upgrade schedule:

4th quarter 2012 – 2nd quarter 2013

~7.5 months

for PSB cooldown, PSB modifications,

PSB commissioning with LINAC4

→ LHC peak luminosity in IP1&5 ~ 2x1034 cm-2s-1

(1-2) ATLAS [& CMS] may need 18 months downtime as

early as 2015 (N. Hessey, LHCC 1 July 2008)

(2) mid-November 2016 – end June 2017:

~7.5 months

for SPS cooldown, SPS modifications,

SPS commissioning with SPL+PS2

→ LHC peak luminosity in IP1&5 ~ 1x1035 cm-2s-1

slide21

from 2001 upgrade feasibility study

(note:

2006 nominal

and ultimate

parameters

are slightly

different)

slide22

from 2001 upgrade feasibility study

~0.01

~0.01

~0.01

~0.01

tune footprint up to 6s

with 2 IPs

tune footprint up to 6s

with 2 IPs at ultimate

intensity

nominal tune footprint

up to 6s with 4 IPs

L=1034 cm-2s-1

L=2.3x1034 cm-2s-1

SPS, Tevatron, RHIC experience: beam-beam limit ↔ total tune shift DQ~0.01

going from 4 to 2 IPs we can increase ATLAS&CMS luminosity by factor 2.3

this and all following upgrade studies were based on assumption of only 2 IPs

can we make upgraded lhcb compatible with upgraded lhc
can we make (upgraded) LHCb compatible with upgraded LHC?!
  • aim to minimize contribution to beam-beam tune shift (note: DQ is independent of b*)
  • aim to provide optimum LHCb luminosity of 2x1033 cm-2s-1/2808 per bunch crossing, or 1/50th of luminosity in IP1 & 5
slide24

bunch structures

nominal

25 ns

ultimate

& 25-ns upgrade

(ES & FCC)

25 ns

50-ns upgrade (LPA),

no collisions in LHCb!

50 ns

50-ns upgrade

with 25-ns

collisions

in LHCb

50 ns

25 ns

slide25

LHCb recipe for 50-ns scenario

  • add satellites at 25 ns spacing
  • these can be produced by highly asymmetric bunch
  • splitting in the PS (possibly large fluctuation)
  • in LHCb satellites collide with main bunches
  • satellite intensity should be lower than 3x1010 p/bunch
  • to add <5% to beam-beam tune shift and to avoid
  • e-cloud problems;
  • 3x1010 ~ 1/16th of main-bunch charge
  • b function of ~3 m would result in desired
  • luminosity equivalent to 2x1033 cm-2s-1;
  • easily possible with present IR magnets & layout
  • [simpler alternative with lower rate: collide displaced
  • 50-ns bunch trains in LHCb @ b*~ 25 m (R. Garoby)]
lhcb schemes for 25 ns scenario
LHCb schemes for 25-ns scenario
  • here head-on collisions add to beam-beam tune shift of bunches colliding in ATLAS & CMS
  • potential ways out:
    • collisions withtransverse offset
    • collide at LHCb only in later part of each store, when the beam-beam tune shift from IP1 & 5 has decreased (H. Dijkstra)

more “exotic” / advanced (need studies):

    • “electron lenses” for tune-shift compensation
    • flat-beam “crab-waist” collisions for DQx~0
slide27

LHCb collisions with transverse offset d

luminosity:

L = L0exp (-d2/(4s2))

tune shift:

DQ LHCb = 2 DQIP1or5 / (d/s)2

suppose tune shift from LHCb should be less

than 10% of that from CMS or ATLAS →d>4.5 s ;

then luminosity L ~ 0.006 L0

if we wish LLHCb~0.01 LIP1or5 (~1-2x1033 cm-2s-1)

we need b* ~0.08 m → IR triplet upgrade!

offset collisions w/o IR upgrade LLHCb ~ 4x1031 cm-2s-1

slide28

other concerns for 4-5s offset collisions:

  • offset stability
  • interference with LHC collimation
  • effect on beam lifetime
  • effect on detector background
  • experience at RHIC, SPS, HERA and Tevatron was
  • discouraging (see slides with examples presented
  • at LHCB Upgrade Workshop of January 2007);
  • but interpretation of past results and their application
  • to LHC is a bit controversial
slide29

LHCb luminosity for 25 ns with offset & 50 ns

25 ns

spacing,

4.5s offset,

b*~0.08 m

50 ns

spacing,

satellites

LHCb 50-ns luminosity decays 2x more slowly

than 25-ns luminosity or that at ATLAS and CMS

PAF/POFPA Meeting 20 November 2006

slide30

tune shift during store for 25-ns & 50-ns spacing

50 ns

spacing

change

DQ ~

-0.0033

25 ns

spacing

LHCb 25-ns collisions from middle of each store?! b*~3 m

(5 h turnaround time is assumed)

PAF/POFPA Meeting 20 November 2006

slide31

LHCb luminosity for 25-ns late collisions & 50 ns

25 ns

spacing,

b* ~ 3 m,

no transverse

offset

50 ns

spacing,

b*~3 m,

satellites

(5 h turnaround time is assumed)

PAF/POFPA Meeting 20 November 2006

lhcb collision parameters
LHCb collision parameters

rms length of luminous region:

(in cases w/o transverse offset)

PAF/POFPA Meeting 20 November 2006

summary
summary
  • time slots for LHCb upgrade: annual shutdown: > 3 months; phase-1 2012/13: > 7 months; ATLAS/CMS upgrade: 2015/16/17? ~18 months; phase-2 2016/17: > 7 months
  • three paths to 10x higher luminosity in IP1&5: 25-ns or 50-ns bunch spacing; early LHC experience may decide
  • original upgrade plans did not consider LHCb, however LHCb can be made compatible
  • 50-ns upgrade: satellite bunches at 25 ns could yield desired LHCb luminosity nearly transparently
  • 25-ns upgrade:LHCb collisions with transverse offset + LHCb IR upgrade not too promising; better: late collisions with b*~3 m; e- lenses & crab-waist option to be studied

PAF/POFPA Meeting 20 November 2006