Transcript Slide 1

LHC Ring Collimation
– Overview –
R. Assmann, AB/ABP
for the LHC Collimation Project
Included in overview
• Phases of LHC collimation with timeline
• Completing phase 1 collimation by 2007
– Components with spares
– Budget preliminary estimate and risks
– Manpower
– Schedule 2003/2004
– IR7 layout: optics and cleaning design
– Prototyping and tests
• Radiation and shielding
• Schedule beyond 2004
Main work flow
OCT02
JUL03
Start of project
Definition of phased approach
Collimator specifications for phase 1
System layout
(optics, energy
deposition, …)
MAY-OCT04
Radiation,
collimator
shielding
Collimator
mechanical
design
Phase 2 R&D
design, production
Motors, control
electronics
Budget
Prototyping, verification with SPS test
2005-2006
Series production
2006-2007
Installation, commissioning
Logic behind the phased approach
No single collimator solution corresponds to all LHC requirements:
• High robustness (withstand LHC beam)
• Low impedance (don’t disturb LHC beam)
• High efficiency (allow high beam intensities in SC ring)
Conflicting requirements 
More flexible approach required with specific
sub-systems for achieving nominal and
ultimate performance (hybrid sec. collimators)
Benefiting from natural evolution of LHC beam parameters:
STAGE the design, production & installation of LHC collimators
Phase 1: Compatible with injection&ramping up to ultimate intensities and with
requirements of commissioning and early 7 TeV physics run!
(accepting to run at the impedance limit at 7 TeV, fixed with phase 2)
Timeline for collimation phases
(without commissioning of the system – included in project mandate)
2002
ID
1
T ask Name
Proj ect set-up
2
Conceptual design
3
Phase 1
4
Phase 2
5
Phase 3
6
Phase 4 (optional)
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2
Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q
Timeline for phase 1 is on the critical path since start of the project: design,
prototyping, production, installation of a big and challenging system in 4 years.
Phase 1 is being realized…
- with a collimator concept as robust as possible and as simple as possible
- relying as much as possible on available experience
- completed as fast as possible
- for a quite low price
- with 50 × better efficiency than required at other machines (tighter tolerances)
Phased approach gives us room for learning and developing the LHC collimation.
Timeline for different phases extends until 2010/11.
Start phase 2 design early to allow for nominal performance with advanced design (wait until
phase is in series production)!
Phasing of ring collimators (including spares)
Phase 4, 16
(no spares)
Phase 3, 5
(1 spare)
Phase 2, 33
(3 spares)
Phase 1, 79
(11 spares)
Size of system:
Maximal 118 collimators installed  comparable to
LEP system which had 200 blocks!
Ultimate efficiency:
With optional “Phase 4” (not required for nominal –
to be confirmed for new optics).
Completing Phase 1 collimation by 2007
Highest priority:
Compatibility with LHC schedule without compromising
the system performance (…too much)
(remember: in phase 1 we require 50× advancement in
cleaning efficiency beyond requirements elsewhere)
Strategy:
Rely on solutions that worked before with similar
mechanical specifications (resisting the temptation
to just copy without verifying solutions are OK)!
 Use to maximum extent LEP solutions (no fancy stuff)
 EST leads mechanical design and prototyping (LEP designer)
 Strong support from AB division for mechanical design
 See O. Aberle for details…
Reserve sufficient time for experimental tests:
jaw materials, vacuum, heating and cooling, flatness,
prototype tests (SPS, TT40)
Quality assurance is crucial (0.2 mm deformations over 1m jaw  useless
secondary collimator  factor 10 in allowable intensity easily lost)
Collimators for Phase 1 (including spares)
(1 spare)
TCSP, 7
TCLP, 5
TCP, 11
(3 spares)
(1 spare)
TCLI, 5
Phase 1 is a big system:
• Total 79 components (95 in
worst unlikely case).
• Much work overhead:
6 different types, not
counting different
azimuthal orientations for
TCS!
(1 spare)
TCT, 18
(2 spares)
TCS, 33
(3 spares)
Concentrating on design of secondary collimators (TCS):
 most components and most difficult!
TCS design will serve as basis for TCP, TCSP, TCLP, and TCLI designs!
Collimation project for Phase 1
• Budget and risks
• Manpower
• Schedule
Budget LHC Collimation – Phase 1 –
TCP
TCS
TCT
TCLI
TCLP
TCSP
General costs
Installation/align
m./transp./…
Total
Number of components Cost/component
machine
spares
[kSFr]
8
3
103
30
3
133
16
2
133
4
1
133
4
1
133
6
1
63
68
68
Total cost
[kSFr]
1133
4389
2394
665
665
441
2247
5
11
340
12274
• Preliminary budget estimate (final estimate only after building prototype).
• Budget was allocated by LHC management (to be put into EVM).
• Prices appear favorable if compared with costs of existing (simpler) designs (SNS).
Budget risks phase 1
 The carbon jaws can be fixed on a metallic cooling support with a technique of clamping.
If state-of-the-art techniques (as used for the ITER fusion project) need to be applied
significant cost increase would result (on the order of 2-3MSFr).
 The cost for motors, electronics, and local control is based on the LEP technology and
prices. If this technology cannot be used (e.g. due to higher radiation at LHC) significant
cost increase can result.
 It is assumed that no local shielding is put at the collimators. Otherwise advanced
handling tools for shielding and collimators might be required with a significant increase in
budget.
 A flexible collimator design is assumed (collimators can be used for any plane),
resulting in a minimum number of spares. More spares for less flexible designs would
cause an increase in budget.
 It is assumed that 5 out of 8 prototypes to be built can be installed into the LHC as
collimators. Prototyping cost therefore takes into account only 3 components.
 Significant R&D for phase 2 collimators is done by SLAC as part of the US-LHC
collaboration (LARP) . Additional budget would be required if this R&D work would need to
be performed at CERN.
 Production and installation cost for phase 2 and phase 3 collimators is not included. Phase
2 collimators need to be installed after one year of LHC operation. However, the costs of
services for phase 2 and 3 are included, as they should be installed for day 1 of LHC
(minimizing human intervention in IR3 and IR7).
Manpower Collimation Project
FTE
8
2003
7
2004
6
5
4
3
w/o
ions
2
1
0
HW
sim/design/exp
proj. management
2003
1.6
4.8
0.5
2004
4.5
8
0.5
Manpower:
6.9 FTE (2003)  13.0 FTE (2004)
AB-division:
3.3 FTE (2003)  6.9 FTE (2004)
1.0 from PhD
student
FTE
Manpower per group
4
2003
2004
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
AB/ABP
AB/ATB
AB/CO
AB/RF
AT/MT
EST
IHEP
TIS/RP
TRIUMF
2003
1.6
1.5
0.2
0
0.3
0.8
1
1
0.7
2004
3.4
1.8
1.2
0.5
0.3
2.4
2
0.7
0.7
Total:
27 persons involved from 9 groups in 2004
Average FTE/person:
0.3 (2003)  0.5 (2004)
Manpower status
•
We are still building up manpower to tackle the collimation challenge
(almost double in 2004).
•
About 50% of manpower from AB.
•
Still most resources on simulation/system design:
This illustrates the big challenge of non-trivial beam loss signatures.
2004: Shielding in IR3 and IR7 is a major work challenge (see later).
Still not at all easy to meet deadlines!
•
Hardware resources tripling next year (stronger increase than simulation).
Healthy sign: Further increase might be required as we start to produce
hardware!
•
Average FTE/person goes from 0.3 to 0.5: Average person works 50% of
its time on collimation! Healthy development! Still struggling with other
priorities!
Schedule
• Collimation project not in steady state.
• Schedule must adapt to available manpower, free resources,
priorities, encountered difficulties, ….
• No time reserve in schedule.
Emphasis in 2003:
• Put resources together to make quick progress
• Develop a coherent picture of collimation in the LHC rings
• Fix basic technical design parameters (materials, lengths, …)
• First round of new layout in IR3 and IR7
• Get mechanical design going on most difficult collimator
Schedule and tasks defined in detail until end of 2004…
ID
T ask Name
1
Project set-up
2
Conceptual design
3
Optics & cleaning design IR7
4
Feedback from AT/VAC, EST /IC
5
Energy deposi tion IR7: Absorbers
6
ECR IR7
7
Optics & cleaning design IR3
8
Energy deposi tion IR3: Absorbers
9
ECR IR3
10
Prepare ECR tertiary collimators
11
ECR tertiary collimators
12
Shielding study
13
Decision on shielding design
14
Mechanical pre-design
15
Acquiring&Measuring C samples
16
Mechanical design T CS
17
Drawings T CS jaws
18
Ordering TCS jaw material
19
Motorization/local control
20
Integration into LHC controls
21
Heating/cooling test
22
Prototypes construction
23
T est: Mechani cal tolerances
24
T est: Outbaking/Vacuum
25
T est: Mechani cal tolerances
26
T est: Impedance
27
Integrate with motorization
28
Integrate local controls
29
Remote control tests
30
Proposal SPS/TT 40 test
31
Pre-installation SPS
32
Pre-installation T T40
33
T est installation
34
SPS/TT 40 beam tests
Qtr 4, 2002
Qtr 1, 2003
Qtr 2, 2003
Qtr 3, 2003
Qtr 4, 2003
Qtr 1, 2004
Qtr 2, 2004
Qtr 3, 2004
Q
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep O
Phased approach
LHC layout for phased
approach and nominal
performance
Mechanical design for
phase 1 TCS collimators
(prototypes for SPS/TT40
test)
SPS/TT40 test
IR7 layout: Optics and cleaning design
Goal:
Space allocations for secondary collimators (2 beams×16×2m), phase 2
hybrid collimators (2 beams×16×2m) with all upgrade phases.
Keep good cleaning efficiency.
Minimize impedance.
Decision for proposal:
Has been taken 14.11.03. Being finalized in optics
team.
Quadrupole movements
Much larger
movements
for collimators!
Space in IR7
"RBEND"
2TCS + 1TCS
"MBW.A6L7.B1"
= 12m
376.7491258
24.7m
"QUADRUPOLE"
"MQWA.E5L7.B1"
405.1216258
"QUADRUPOLE"
"MQWA.A5L7.B1"
423.6216258
2TCS + 5TCS
= 28m
"MQWA.E4L7.B1"
463.2116258
"QUADRUPOLE"
"MQWA.D4L7.B1"
466.9
= 4m
"MQWA.C4L7.B1"
475.6
"QUADRUPOLE"
"MQWA.A4L7.B1"
486.7116258
= 40m
"MQWA.A4R7.B1"
607.6636258
"QUADRUPOLE"
"MQWA.C4R7.B1"
618.8
= 4m
"MQWA.D4R7.B1"
627.5
"QUADRUPOLE"
"MQWA.E4R7.B1"
631.1636258
= 28m
"MQWA.A5R7.B1"
670.7536258
"QUADRUPOLE"
"MQWA.E5R7.B1"
689.2536258
"RBEND"
Q4R
Lowest free space
between quads:
7.9 m
= 12m
Q4R
35.9m
"QUADRUPOLE"
1TCS + 2TCS
Q4 L
Sufficient space for
correctors, BPM’s,
…
5.0m
"QUADRUPOLE"
5TCS + 2TCS
Q4 L
40% of space in
IR7 reserved for
collimation
117.3m
"QUADRUPOLE"
1TCS
All space included!
5.0m
"QUADRUPOLE"
5TCS + 5TCS
Q5 L
35.9m
"QUADRUPOLE"
1TCS
Dogleg L
24.6m
"MBW.A6R7.B1"
717.6261258
Q5
Dogleg R
Lowest free space
with collimator in
between modules:
1.0m
Cleaning design IR7
Target inefficiency
Phase 1 with all collimators:
Roughly as good as old system…
Now to be done:
Remove collimators from phase 1!
Ultimate reach with Cu hybrids:
Factor 3-4 better in inefficiency!
Larger collimator gaps:
Expect factor 2-3 gain in impedance!
Radiation & collimator shielding
The LHC management has confirmed its policy to limit environmental
impact of LHC operation to less than the low 10mSv/y limit.
This implies that shielding will be installed in IR3/IR7, also on the
collimators, if required to achieve this goal (also implementing
ventilation changes).
Important trade-off in radiation protection in IR3/7:
Low personnel exposure
Less shielding
Low environmental impact
More shielding
Detailed shielding studies and proposals middle of next year
between TIS/RP, collimation project, vacuum, …!
Just a few slides as a warning!
Collimator integration without shielding:
Compact dimensions in order
to respect inter-beam
distance and support various
azimuthal orientations:
0˚  90˚
(all angles possible)
Details: O. Aberle
Collimator tank
with motors
(~100kg)
R. Perret, EST
Collimator integration with shielding:
Example of 20cm shielding
(illustrative only, no design)
Collimator design for SPS
prototypes continues w/o
shielding.
Start thinking about
LHC design now:
• Motors (inside/ouside)
• Moving mechanism
• Handling tools (crane)
Decide about
shielding details
middle of next year!
(start study Feb04)
Impact on collimator
design and insertion layout!
(integration)
 Next AB project review!?
R. Perret, EST
Prototyping & Tests
Prototyping and tests are very important in view of the challenges:
• Build a prototype for every type of collimator!
• Assume 8 prototypes (already for TCS + 1 other overhead).
• Budget assumes that 5 of them can be installed into the LHC!
Biggest challenge tackled first (in terms of tolerances, dimensions,
flexibility):
• Secondary collimators TCS with 1.2 m jaw (details O. Aberle).
• Two prototypes to be completed in May 2004 (EST).
• Thorough program of testing and design verification for TCS
prototypes:
•
Laboratory measurements (see planning)
•
Beam measurements (TT40: robustness, SPS:
functionality/impedance)
ID
T ask Name
1
Project set-up
2
Conceptual design
3
Optics & cleaning design IR7
4
Feedback from AT/VAC, EST /IC
5
Energy deposi tion IR7: Absorbers
6
ECR IR7
7
Optics & cleaning design IR3
8
Energy deposi tion IR3: Absorbers
9
ECR IR3
10
Prepare ECR tertiary collimators
11
ECR tertiary collimators
12
Shielding study
13
Decision on shielding design
14
Mechanical pre-design
15
Acquiring&Measuring C samples
16
Mechanical design T CS
17
Drawings T CS jaws
18
Ordering TCS jaw material
19
Motorization/local control
20
Integration into LHC controls
21
Heating/cooling test
22
Prototypes construction
23
T est: Mechani cal tolerances
24
T est: Outbaking/Vacuum
25
T est: Mechani cal tolerances
26
T est: Impedance
27
Integrate with motorization
28
Integrate local controls
29
Remote control tests
30
Proposal SPS/TT 40 test
31
Pre-installation SPS
32
Pre-installation T T40
33
T est installation
34
SPS/TT 40 beam tests
Qtr 4, 2002
Qtr 1, 2003
Qtr 2, 2003
Qtr 3, 2003
Qtr 4, 2003
Qtr 1, 2004
Qtr 2, 2004
Qtr 3, 2004
Q
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep O
Phased approach
LHC layout for phased
approach and nominal
performance
Mechanical design for
phase 1 TCS collimators
(prototypes for SPS/TT40
test)
SPS/TT40 test
Schedule beyond middle 2004
More complete schedule will be prepared in January 2004:
1) Mechanical design of TCP, TCSP, TCT, TCLI, TCLP:
Possible after completing design of TCS in 2/04…
2) Prototyping beyond the SPS test requirements:
Possible after delivering TCS prototypes in 5/04…
3) Feedback from TCS tests, design optimizations
After SPS tests in 11/04…
4) Preparation for series production:
Starting in 1/04…
… later in 2004 (knowing about local shielding)…
5) Schedule for ordering components, assembly, …
6) Schedule of test and quality assurance for series production
7) Installation schedule
Still strong uncertainties until end of 2004:
•
•
•
Delivery delays
Assembly and testing
Shielding and additional handling tools
Conclusion
•
Project for LHC collimation is gathering momentum, relying on good
support from about 9 groups at CERN.
•
A path to nominal LHC performance has been defined.
•
Project is not in steady state  dynamic process (not everything is
defined, scheduled, or documented in detail  adjust to reality).
•
However, documentation in LHC design report…
•
Advancing on freezing layout (IR7 optics and cleaning design
completed) with good LHC performance reach.
•
Advancing on mechanical design and prototyping.
•
Detailed work tasks and schedule for 2003/2004 has been defined,
including thorough testing without and with beam.
•
New budget has been requested and allocated.
•
Local shielding imposes risks for changes in design, budget, schedule.
•
Next version of schedule (more complete) in Feb2004 and Nov2004?
•
We will have a reasonably well performing Phase 1 collimation in 2007,
but we cannot (yet) relax!
 O. Aberle will present the engineering details…
Project steering
Collimation project
E. Chiaveri
Leader: R. Assmann
Project engineer: O. Aberle
AB division
report to
Organization, schedule, budget,
milestones, progress monitoring,
design decisions
Resources/planning
R. Assmann, E. Chiaveri,
M. Mayer, J.P. Riunaud
(S. Myers, LTC)
LHC project
(L. Evans)
Supply & ordering
O. Aberle, A. Bertarelli
Beam aspects
R. Assmann, LCWG
System design, optics,
efficiency, impedance
(calculation, measurement), beam impact,
tolerances, diffusion,
beam loss, beam tests,
beam commissioning,
functional specification
(8/03), operational
scenarios, support of
operation
Energy
deposition,
radiation
Collimator
engineering & HW
support
A. Ferrari
(collimator design, ions)
J.B Jeanneret
(BLM’s, tuning)
M. Brugger
(radiation impact)
FLUKA, Mars studies for
energy deposition around
the rings. Activation and
handling requirements.
O. Aberle
Sen. advice: P. Sievers
Conceptual collimator design, ANSYS studies,
hardware commissioning,
support for beam tests,
series production,
installation,
maintenance/repair,
electronics&local control,
phase 2 collimator R&D
Mechanical engineering (EST)
Coord.: M. Mayer
Engin.: A. Bertarelli
Sen. designer: R. Perret
Technical specification,
space budget and mechanical integration, thermomechanical calculations
and tests, collimator
mechanical design,
prototype testing,
prototype production,
drawings for series
production.
Machine Protection
Vacuum
Beam instrum.
Dump/kickers
Integration into operation
R. Schmidt
M. Jimenez
B. Dehning
B. Goddard
M. Lamont
Local feedback
Controls
Electronics/radiation
J. Wenninger
AB/CO
T. Wijnands
rearranged Aug03
Budget for a TCS
Item
Quantity Cost/item
[kSFr]
Total cost
[kSFr]
Jaw material (65x45x1200
mm 3)
2
5
10
Coating
2
0.6
1.2
Motor (micron stepping
motors)
6
1.5
9
Controls + Power supplies
1
13
13
8
8
Cables
Machining
(jaws/tank/RF/support/…)
1
50
50
Easy handling equipment
1
10
10
Cooling 10 kW
1
27
27
Sensoring
1
5
5
Total
133.2
General costs
Item
EST design work
Prototyping
Cost
[kSFr]
6300 h
321
8 components, 5 into LHC
400
General design studies
+ tests
Vacuum heat treatment
Assembly, testing, bakeout (1 month x 2 people
/ object)
Cabling, handling
equipment and
services in preparation
for phases 2 and 3
Total
250
1-2 batches
4
13.2 FTE (a 50kSFr)
660
34 times 18kSFr
612
2247
Manpower
2003
2004
R. Assmann
J.B. Jeanneret
E. Metral/L. Vos
S. Redaelli
D. Schulte
G. Robert-Demolaize
1.0
0.3
0.2
0.0
0.1
0.0
1.0
0.3
0.1
1.0
0.2
0.8
sim/design/management
sim/design
sim
sim/exp
sim
sim/exp
7 AB/ATB
8
9
10
11
O. Aberle
E. Chiaveri
F. Dercorvet
A. Ferrari
V. Vlachoudis
0.8
0.1
0.0
0.3
0.3
0.6
0.2
0.5
0.3
0.3
HW
management
HW
sim
sim
12 AB/CO
13
14
15
V. Kain
M. Jonker
F. Carollo
F. Locci
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.2
0.6
0.2
sim/exp
HW
HW
HW
16 AB/RF
M. Magistris
0.0
0.5
sim
17 AT/MT
P. Sievers
0.3
0.3
design
18 EST
19
20
21
M. Mayer
A. Bertarelli
R. Perret
L. Favre
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.5
0.5
0.9
0.5
HW
HW
HW
HW
22 IHEP
23
24
I. Baishev et al
I. Kouroutchkine
Igor
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.7
0.7
0.6
sim
25 TIS/RP
26
M. Brugger
S. Roesler
0.8
0.2
0.5
0.2
design/sim
design/sim
27 TRIUMF
D. Kaltchev
0.7
0.7
sim
Sum FTE
Average FTE/person
6.9
0.3
13.1
0.5
1 AB/ABP
2
3
4
5
6
Details manpower:
excluding ions
Dose rate for a carbon collimator - One day of cooling
All results are shown in mSv/h.
Collimator
Pipe
Tunnel without shield
Tunnel with shield
Shield
M. Brugger, S. Roesler
1h40m intervention to change a carbon collimator (1 day cooling):
Primary collimator
0.7 mSv (unshielded)
10 mSv (shielded)
Secondary coll.
0.07 mSv (unshielded)
1 mSv (shielded)
We do not want shielding at the collimators, if at all possible!