1 / 39

HL-LHC and (V)HE-LHC accelerator designs and plans

HL-LHC and (V)HE-LHC accelerator designs and plans. Lucio Rossi CERN @ CLIC workshop, 28 January 2013. Content. Recap of the HL-LHC project Scope Technology Plan HE-LHC Scope Technology VE-LHC variant Plan. Two Reasons for upgrade: Performance & Technical (Consolidation).

powa
Download Presentation

HL-LHC and (V)HE-LHC accelerator designs and plans

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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. HL-LHC and (V)HE-LHC accelerator designs and plans Lucio Rossi CERN @ CLIC workshop, 28 January 2013

  2. Content • Recap of the HL-LHC project • Scope • Technology • Plan • HE-LHC • Scope • Technology • VE-LHC variant • Plan

  3. TwoReasons for upgrade: Performance & Technical (Consolidation) Shut down to fixinterconnects and overcomeenergy limitation (LHC incident of Sept 2008) and R2E Full upgrade Shut down to overcomebeamintensity limitation (Injectors, collimation and more…)

  4. Final goal : 3000 fb-1 by 2030’s… 5 1034levelledlumi(25 1034virtualpeaklumi) 140 pile up (average) 3 fb-1 per day 60% of efficiency 250 fb-1 /year 300 fb-1/year as «ultimate» Full project Just continue improvingperformance throughvigorous consolidation

  5. Official BeamParameters(see PLC by O.Bruning) 6.2 1014 and4.9 1014 p/beam • sufficient room for leveling • (with Crab Cavities) • Virtual luminosity (25ns) of • L = 7.4 / 0.35 1034 cm-2 s-1 • = 21 1034 cm-2 s-1 (‘k’ = 5) • Virtual luminosity (50ns) of • L = 8.5 / 0.33 1034 cm-2 s-1 • = 26 1034 cm-2 s-1 (‘k’ = 10) (Leveled to 5 1034 cm-2 s-1 and 2.5 1034 cm-2 s-1) 28

  6. 1.2 km of new equipment in the LHC… 6.5 kW@4.5K cryoplant 2 x 18 kW @4.5K cryoplants for IRs

  7. Technical Progress (incomplete …) - 2 WP3 LARP: HQ (1m-120 mm) and LQ3 (3.6 m -90 mm), very positive. Aperture 150 mm, 4.5+4.5 m long, W-shielded, more rad-dam limitedthanheatdepolimited, new plan for LARP+CERN EU (CEA, INFN)+ JP LQS03: 208 T/m at 4.6 K 210 T/m at 1.9 K 1stquench: 86% s.s.limit HQ: 120 mm; 12 T passed 3.3 m coils 90 mm aperture Target: 200 T/m gradient at 1.9 K

  8. Technical Progress (incomplete …) - 3 WP4 First CC (from UK) arrivedat CERN, first test donein Nov 2012! ODU-SLAC CC alsoverynear, BNL underway InterestfromFermilab for cryomodule design and proto Fromvirtual to actual reality!

  9. HiLumi: Two branches (withoverlap) • PIC - Performance Improving Consolidation upgrade (1000 fb-1) • IR quad change (rad. Damage, enhancedcooling) • Cryogenics (P4, IP4,IP5)separation Arc -RF and IR(?) • EnhancedCollimation (11T?) • SC links (in part) and rad. Mitigation (ALARA) • QPS and Machine Prot. • Kickers • Interlock system • FP- Full Performance upgrade (3000 fb-1) • CrabCavities • HB feedback system (SPS) • Advanced collimation systems • E-lens (?) • SC links (all) • R2E and remote handling for 3000 fb-1

  10. Preliminary budget estimate

  11. What SC canoffer more to accelrators?

  12. LRossi@CLIC

  13. Parameterslist of LHC upgrades(O. Dominguez and F. Zimmermann)

  14. Need to beaddressed

  15. Technology: dipolesvs solenoids in time, a comparison Use of HTS Factor 2 due to Coil «efficiency» and to force-stress management LBNL LBNL UT CERN LBNL BNL

  16. LRossi@CLIC Main dipoles: wahtisneeded? What has been achieved? Lookingat performance offered by practical SC, considering tunnel size and basic engineering (forces, stresses, energy) the practicallimitsisaround 20 T. Such a challenge issimilar to a 40 T solenoid (-C) LBNL, with large bore Spring 2013 Nb-Ti operating dipoles; Nb3Sn cos test dipoles Nb3Sn block test dipoles

  17. LRossi@CLIC The « new » materials1 – Nb3Sn • Recent 23.4 T (1 GHz) NMR Magnet for spectroscopy in Nb3Sn (and Nb-Ti). 15-20 tons/year for NMR and HF solenoids. Experimental MRI is taking off • ITER: 500 t in 2010-2015! It is comparable to LHC! • HEP ITD (Internal Tin Diffusion): • High Jc., 3xJc ITER • Large filament (50 µm), large couplingcurrent... • Costis 5 times LHC Nb-Ti 0.7 mm, 108/127 stack RRP from Oxford OST 1 mm, 192 tubes PIT from Bruker EAS

  18. LRossi@CLIC The « new » materials: HTSBi-2212 • DOE program 2009-11 in USA let to a factor 2 gain. Weneedanother 50% and more uniformity, eliminatingporosity and leakage • Round wire, isotropous and suitable to cabling! • HEP onlyusers (good < 20K and for compact cable) • Big issue: verylowstrainresistance, brittle • Production ~ 0, • cost~ 2-5 times Nb3Sn (Ag stabilized)

  19. LRossi@CLIC The « new » materials: HTSYBCO • Tape of 0.1-0.2 mm x 4-10 mm : difficult for compact (>85%) cables • Currentis EXCELENT but serious issue is the anisotropy; • >90% of world effort on HTS are on YBCO! Great synergywith all community • Cost : todayis 10 times Nb3Sn, targetissameprice: components not expensive, processdifficult to beindustrializeatlowcost • FP7 Eucardisdeveloping EU Ybco

  20. LRossi@CLIC New (old) approach to cablingsuitable for tapes An old type of cabling (Roebel) suitable for tapes has been recentlyrivisited (Karlsruhe, New ResearchIndustry NZ) Here a first 2 m long test cabledoneat CERN

  21. LRossi@CLIC Magnetshapes (fieldoptimization & structure) Cos Coil CantedSolenoidCoil S. Caspi Block Coil Hybrid Cos Block Coil P. McIntyre

  22. LRossi@CLIC First consistent cross section, 2010 WG and Malta (fits our tunnel) L. Rossi and E. Todesco Magnet design: 40 mm bore (depends on injection energy: > 1 Tev)Verychallenging but feasable: 300 mm inter-beam; anticoils to reduce flux Approximately 2.5 times more SC than LHC: 3000 tonnes! Multiple powering in the samemagnet for FQ (and more sectioning for energy) Certainlyonly a first attempt: cos and othershapeswillbealsoinvestigated

  23. LRossi@CLIC The EU programThe chance for HTS • Last FP7 call in Nov2011: EuCARD2 (2013-16) • Approved; undernegotiation for signature • WP-10Future Magnets • Assessment of YBCO and Bi-2212 for HE-LHC • Development of 10 kA class HTS compact cable • Prototype of a 5 T real acceleratorqualitymagnet • Test the coil in a 13-15 T background field to proof 18-20 T principlewith 10 kA HTS conductor.

  24. LRossi@CLIC LHC, the construction timeline: a 25 yearoldproject

  25. LRossi@CLIC What is the possibile for HE-LHC? US basic programs and LARP R&D EU FP6-CARE-NED EuCARD 13 T large dipole+ 18 T small insert US 13 T Quads FP7-HiLumi US NbSn-HTS development Full profit of the HiLumi program US 16 T smalldipole LARP 11 T long quad EuCARD R&D 15-20 T R&D dipolemodels and prototypes 15-20 T dip final proto & Industrialization Final deliveryMagnets HE-LHC 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 EuCARD2 full bore dipole HTS HE-LHC preliminarystudy HE-LHC start-up HTS for HE-LHC: yes.or.no Industrycontracts, startconstrution

  26. LRossi@CLIC HE-LHC cost: rough evalutionbased on LHC • LHC (machine): about 3 BCHF, 1.7 BCHF for the magnet system, • HE-LHC: The non-magnet is  same 1.5 BCHF • Magnet System Nb3Sn (26 TeVc.o.m.) :  3.5 BCHF (for a total of 5 BCHF for the whole machine) • Magnet System HTS (33 TeVc.o.m) :  5 BCHF (for a total of 6.5 BCHF for the whole machine) • The abovecost are for a new machine, like LHC. Economycouldbe made becauseCryo and othersystemsneedonlyrenovation; • howeverone shouldconsider the cost of LHC removal)

  27. LRossi@CLIC Other important issues (amongmany …) • Synchrotron radiation • 15 to 30 times! • The best is to use a windowgiven by vacuum stabilityataround 50-60 K (gain a factor 15 in cryopowerremoval!) • First study on beamimpedanceseems positive but to beverifiedcarefully • Use of HTS coating on beamscreen? • Beam in & out • Both injection and beam dump region are constraints. • Ideally one wouldneedtwicestronger kickers • Beam dumps seemsfeasable by increasingrisetime from 3 to 5s • Injection wouldstronglybenefitformstronger kickers otherwise a new lay-out isneeded (differentwith or wihtoutexperiments)

  28. LRossi@CLIC Beyond Linac4: possible SC SPS? HE-LHC SPS+ New injectorsoptimization Linac4

  29. LRossi@CLIC Alternate scenarios for Injectors • Keeping SPS (and itstransferlines: 6 km!): LowEnergy Ring in LHC tunnel withsuperferricPipetronmagnets (W. Foster). • Workdone by Fermilab (H. Piekarz), see Malta workshop proc. • cost of LER is lower than SC-SPS option. • Integration is difficult but no show-stoppers

  30. Steps for Potential Large Projects beyond the LHC infrastructure: the 47-80 km long ring tunnel J. Osborne • Several proposals exist for major projects at CERN to complement / succeed the LHC • CLIC, HE-LHC, TLEP, LHeC etc… • Steps to undertake before starting construction planning • Determine requirements for the project • Create basic civil engineering drawings • Perform siting studies • Perform feasibility studies to determine optimal location • Optimal is most feasible from civil engineering point of view • Select optimal location • Optimize civil engineering drawings according to identified optimal location

  31. Steps for Potential Projects J. Osborne Lake Geneva LHC “Jura” 80km “Lakeside” 47km Jura Mountains Salève Mountain “Lakeside” 80km Molasse Limestone Example: potential locations 80km tunnel project • Steps to undertake before starting construction planning • Determine requirements for the project • Depends on physics requirements • Basic civil engineering drawings • Layout machine, dimensions etc. • Siting studies • Identify several potential locations for the project based on • Layout, infrastructure requirements, accessibility etc.

  32. Steps for Potential Projects J. Osborne Example: geotechnical and environmental feasibility matrix Feasibility High Low • Steps to undertake before starting construction planning • Perform feasibility studies to determine optimal location • Optimal is most feasible from civil engineering point of view • Feasibility studies include: • Geotechnical challenges: identification, risk analysis and studies for possible solutions • Environmental impacts: identification of potential impacts, check French and Swiss regulations • This is not the Environmental Impact Assessment study itself, but a preliminary study

  33. Steps for Potential Projects J. Osborne Example excavation techniques: ‘Cut and Cover’ Tunnel Boring Machine Special works such as ‘groundfreezing’ • Steps to undertake before starting construction planning • Feasibility studies include: • Geotechnical challenges: identification, risk analysis and studies for possible solutions • Environmental impacts: identification of potential impacts, check French and Swiss regulations • Tunneling & Construction: identify challenges, preferred construction methodologies etc. • Costs: perform a preliminary costing studies

  34. Steps for Potential Projects J. Osborne Example: ILC CE optimized drawings • Steps to undertake before starting construction planning • Select optimal site • Optimize civil engineering drawings according to identified optimal location

  35. Injection scheme: SC-SPSVHE-LHC is to expensive(50 MW power for cryo)

  36. Possible arrangement in VHE-LHC tunnel From H. Piekarz Malta Prooc. Pag. 101 30 mm V gap 50 mm H gap Bin = 0.5 T Bextr = 1.5 T

  37. Possible VHE-LHC with a LER suitablealso for e+-e- collision (and VLHeC) – 100 MW sr Advantage: cheap likeresistivemagnets Central gap couldbeshortcircuited Magnetseparated: provideselectron 50 GeV and proton 5 TeV/beam Limited cryopower (HTS) in shadow of SCRF cavities Sccablesdevelopedalready for SC links (HiLumi) and power application. SR takenat 300 K: is possible???

  38. In principle a plan for all (?) is possible (for LHC exploitation): 2018-2020 iscritical time • According to Physicsneeds, the 80 km tunnel can: • Be alternative to HE-LHC • Or complementary to HE-LHC • Accomodatingatnegligibleextra-cost TLEP and VLHeC (this last at 50GeV/5TeV and 350 GeV/50-100 TeV) • Skipping TLEP/VLHeCmayshorten 5-10 years VHE-LHC

  39. HL-LHC is the test bed (on real scale) of new advanced technology: 11T and 13 T Magnets, CCs, new collimation concepts, new diagnostics, SC Links, all working on a 1 GJ beam… (vacuum, cryogenics, kickers, protections…) Synergy with CLIC? For the HE-LHC todayis the right moment to … invent … but the challenge in the next 6-8 yearsis to make a coherentR&D and Studywithcommontools of evaluation and sameapproach to commonsystems, infrastructure, power. Study on VHE-LHC not yetstartedbeyond initial concept.

More Related