design review of the 1 st rotatable collimator (rc1) prototype project overview 15 december 2005 tom...

37
Design Review of the 1 st Rotatable Collimator (RC1) Prototype Project Overview 15 December 2005 Tom Markiewicz/SLAC BNL - FNAL- LBNL - SLAC US LHC Accelerator Research Program

Upload: suzanna-chase

Post on 08-Jan-2018

217 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

DESCRIPTION

RC1 Conceptual Design Review December 2005Project Overview - T. MarkiewiczSlide n° 3 / 34 History Jim Strait/FNAL-LARP mentions “LHC Beam-Abort Failure” collimator survival problem as potential LHC SLAC “Futures” seminar in April –NLC “consumable rotatable collimators” seem to be a possible solution –CERN colleagues & LARP contacted they are interested, discussions begin In spring 2004, CERN decides to stay with baseline design for early, less than design luminosity, LHC running (=Phase I) and install new collimators, if necessary, as current & luminosity rise to design 1E34 (=Phase II) –Discussions with CERN, LARP, DOE, & SLAC management on desire, appropriateness, resources, … of adapting SLAC consumable concept for LHC Phase II result in SLAC joining US-LARP with task of producing a beam- testable prototype by 2008 Design work in FY2005 results in CDR for prototype. LARP management wants external concurrence that prototype looks likely enough to do the job before it begins to commit serious funds. SLAC team wants educated advice on improvements, alternatives & concerns. Hence this review.

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Design Review of the 1 st Rotatable Collimator (RC1) Prototype Project Overview 15 December 2005 Tom Markiewicz/SLAC BNL - FNAL- LBNL - SLAC US LHC Accelerator

Design Review of the 1st Rotatable Collimator (RC1) Prototype

Project Overview

15 December 2005Tom Markiewicz/SLAC

BNL - FNAL- LBNL - SLACUS LHC Accelerator Research Program

Page 2: Design Review of the 1 st Rotatable Collimator (RC1) Prototype Project Overview 15 December 2005 Tom Markiewicz/SLAC BNL - FNAL- LBNL - SLAC US LHC Accelerator

Bureaucratic & HistoricalBackground Information

Technical detail to follow

Page 3: Design Review of the 1 st Rotatable Collimator (RC1) Prototype Project Overview 15 December 2005 Tom Markiewicz/SLAC BNL - FNAL- LBNL - SLAC US LHC Accelerator

RC1 Conceptual Design Review. - 15 December 2005 Project Overview - T. MarkiewiczSlide n° 3 / 34

History

Jim Strait/FNAL-LARP mentions “LHC Beam-Abort Failure” collimator survival problem as potential LHC show-stopper @ SLAC “Futures” seminar in April 2003. – NLC “consumable rotatable collimators” seem to be a possible solution– CERN colleagues & LARP contacted

• they are interested, discussions begin

In spring 2004, CERN decides to stay with baseline design for early, less than design luminosity, LHC running (=Phase I) and install new collimators, if necessary, as current & luminosity rise to design 1E34 (=Phase II)– Discussions with CERN, LARP, DOE, & SLAC management on desire,

appropriateness, resources, … of adapting SLAC consumable concept for LHC Phase II result in SLAC joining US-LARP with task of producing a beam-testable prototype by 2008

Design work in FY2005 results in CDR for prototype. LARP management wants external concurrence that prototype looks likely enough to do the job before it begins to commit serious funds. SLAC team wants educated advice on improvements, alternatives & concerns. Hence this review.

Page 4: Design Review of the 1 st Rotatable Collimator (RC1) Prototype Project Overview 15 December 2005 Tom Markiewicz/SLAC BNL - FNAL- LBNL - SLAC US LHC Accelerator

RC1 Conceptual Design Review. - 15 December 2005 Project Overview - T. MarkiewiczSlide n° 4 / 34

Page 5: Design Review of the 1 st Rotatable Collimator (RC1) Prototype Project Overview 15 December 2005 Tom Markiewicz/SLAC BNL - FNAL- LBNL - SLAC US LHC Accelerator

RC1 Conceptual Design Review. - 15 December 2005 Project Overview - T. MarkiewiczSlide n° 5 / 34

LARP FY06 Budget: 11M$ Total; 720k$ for RC1Many projects, healthy competition

Page 6: Design Review of the 1 st Rotatable Collimator (RC1) Prototype Project Overview 15 December 2005 Tom Markiewicz/SLAC BNL - FNAL- LBNL - SLAC US LHC Accelerator

RC1 Conceptual Design Review. - 15 December 2005 Project Overview - T. MarkiewiczSlide n° 6 / 34

Studies of a rotatable metallic collimator for possible use in LHC Phase II Collimation System

Study, design, prototype and test collimators that can be dropped into 30 reserved lattice locations as a part of the “Phase II Collimation Upgrade” required if the LHC is to reach its nominal 1E34 luminosity

FY 2004: Introduction to projectFY 2005: Phase II CDR and set up of a collimator lab at SLACFY 2006: Design, construction & testing of RC1FY 2007: Design, construction & no-beam testing of RC2FY 2008: Ship, Install, Beam Tests of RC2 in LHC May-Oct 2008 runFY 2009: Final drawing package for CERNFY 2010: Await production & installation by CERNFY 2011: Commissioning supportRC1=Mechanical Prototype; RC2: Beam Test Prototype

Page 7: Design Review of the 1 st Rotatable Collimator (RC1) Prototype Project Overview 15 December 2005 Tom Markiewicz/SLAC BNL - FNAL- LBNL - SLAC US LHC Accelerator

RC1 Conceptual Design Review. - 15 December 2005 Project Overview - T. MarkiewiczSlide n° 7 / 34

Total Phase II Collimation Projected Budget

BudgetedFY Total Labor M&S Shop Total

2004 $110,000 $11,000 $11,0002005 $190,000 $113,000 $15,000 $128,0002006 $700,000 $390,000 $127,000 $163,000 $680,0002007 $410,000 $182,000 $285,000 $877,0002008 $520,000 $42,000 $81,000 $643,0002009 $520,000 $53,000 $27,000 $600,0002010 $200,000 $21,000 $221,0002011 $300,000 $64,000 $364,000

$1,000,000 $2,453,000 $515,000 $556,000 $3,524,000

Requested or Spent

Money is tight, we are still early (~5%) in the project, is it worth it & are we ready to proceed?

Page 8: Design Review of the 1 st Rotatable Collimator (RC1) Prototype Project Overview 15 December 2005 Tom Markiewicz/SLAC BNL - FNAL- LBNL - SLAC US LHC Accelerator

Phase I and Phase II Collimation at LHC

Page 9: Design Review of the 1 st Rotatable Collimator (RC1) Prototype Project Overview 15 December 2005 Tom Markiewicz/SLAC BNL - FNAL- LBNL - SLAC US LHC Accelerator

RC1 Conceptual Design Review. - 15 December 2005 Project Overview - T. MarkiewiczSlide n° 9 / 34

LHC Collimation Requirements

LHC Beam Parameters for nominal L=1E34cm-2s-1:– 2808 bunches, 1.15E11 p/bunch, 7 TeV 350 MJ – t=25ns, ~200m (collisions)

System Design Requirement: Protect against quenches as beam is lost– Design shielding for expected <>~30hr or 3E9 p/s or 3.4kW– Design collimator cooling for = 1 hour or 8E10 p/s or 90kW– Plan for occasional bursts of = 12 min or 4E11 p/s or 450kW

• abort if lasts > 10 secCollimation system inefficiency:

– Inefficiency ∙ Max Loss Rate < Quench Loss Rate– dQ/dV ~ 1.5mW/gm in SC coil causes quench– Estimate inefficiency of collimation system via SIXTRACK program– Determine minimum required inefficiency via FLUKA/MARS

• 8E6 p/s on TC will quench Q3 in triplet 2E-5 inefficiency @ 4E11 p/s loss

Page 10: Design Review of the 1 st Rotatable Collimator (RC1) Prototype Project Overview 15 December 2005 Tom Markiewicz/SLAC BNL - FNAL- LBNL - SLAC US LHC Accelerator

RC1 Conceptual Design Review. - 15 December 2005 Project Overview - T. MarkiewiczSlide n° 10 / 34

Betatron Collimation in IR7– 3 short (60cm) “Primary” collimators (H,V,S) at 6– 11 long (1m) “Secondary” Collimators (various angles) at 7

Momentum Collimation in IR3– 4 long (1m) “Secondary” collimators

Other– 1m H&V Copper Tertiary Collimators at Experimental IRs at 8.4– 1m Cu or W Absorbers at 10– Warm Magnets, tunnel and shielding absorb remainder of lost beam energy

Non-Accident Engineering Challenge– The first long secondary collimator downstream of the primary system must

absorb much more energy than any other secondary in the system since 80-85% of list particles interact inelastically in the 6 primaries

– The deformation specification of the collimator jaw is set at 25m in order to maintain system efficiency

The LHC Collimation System

Accident Scenario When beam abort system fires asynchronously with respect to abort gap

(armed HV trips accidentally) 8 full intensity bunches will impact collimator jaws

Page 11: Design Review of the 1 st Rotatable Collimator (RC1) Prototype Project Overview 15 December 2005 Tom Markiewicz/SLAC BNL - FNAL- LBNL - SLAC US LHC Accelerator

RC1 Conceptual Design Review. - 15 December 2005 Project Overview - T. MarkiewiczSlide n° 11 / 34

Phase I and Phase II Collimation

Phase I: Use Carbon-Carbon composite as jaw material– 60cm/1m Carbon undamaged in Asynchronous Beam Abort– Low energy absorption of secondary debris eases cooling & tolerances

• 6-7 kW in first 1m C secondary behind of primaries when dE/dt=90 kW– 10 sec 450 kW load handled as a transient

– Low, but adequate collimation efficiency to protect against quenches at lower L expected at startup

– High, but adequate machine impedance for stable operation at low L expected at startup

Phase II: Metal collimators into vacant slots behind each Phase I secondary– Good impedance and efficiency allowing LHC to reach design L= 1E34

• After stable store open Carbon jaws and close Metal jaws– Jaw will be damaged: what to do?– More energy from primaries will be absorbed: cooling & deformation

• only pertains to one unlucky collimator per beam!

Page 12: Design Review of the 1 st Rotatable Collimator (RC1) Prototype Project Overview 15 December 2005 Tom Markiewicz/SLAC BNL - FNAL- LBNL - SLAC US LHC Accelerator

RC1 Conceptual Design Review. - 15 December 2005 Project Overview - T. MarkiewiczSlide n° 12 / 34

IR7 Collimator Layout11 Carbon Phase I and 11 Metal Phase II Secondary

Collimators per beam in IR7

Page 13: Design Review of the 1 st Rotatable Collimator (RC1) Prototype Project Overview 15 December 2005 Tom Markiewicz/SLAC BNL - FNAL- LBNL - SLAC US LHC Accelerator

RC1 Conceptual Design Review. - 15 December 2005 Project Overview - T. MarkiewiczSlide n° 13 / 34

IR7 Collimator Layout

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Beam Direction

Primary Collimators

Hard Hit Secondary Collimators

Page 14: Design Review of the 1 st Rotatable Collimator (RC1) Prototype Project Overview 15 December 2005 Tom Markiewicz/SLAC BNL - FNAL- LBNL - SLAC US LHC Accelerator

RC1 Conceptual Design Review. - 15 December 2005 Project Overview - T. MarkiewiczSlide n° 14 / 34

LHC Beam Dump Abort System

R. SchmidtHALO ‘03

Page 15: Design Review of the 1 st Rotatable Collimator (RC1) Prototype Project Overview 15 December 2005 Tom Markiewicz/SLAC BNL - FNAL- LBNL - SLAC US LHC Accelerator

RC1 Conceptual Design Review. - 15 December 2005 Project Overview - T. MarkiewiczSlide n° 15 / 34

# Bunches on Collimators Delay in Retriggering Dump Kicker

J.-B. JeanneretHALO ‘03

t now < ~0.7 s 8 bunches on colls

Carbon-Carbon Jaws Chosen for Phase I as they

will survive hit by 8 bunches

Page 16: Design Review of the 1 st Rotatable Collimator (RC1) Prototype Project Overview 15 December 2005 Tom Markiewicz/SLAC BNL - FNAL- LBNL - SLAC US LHC Accelerator

RC1 Conceptual Design Review. - 15 December 2005 Project Overview - T. MarkiewiczSlide n° 16 / 34

LHC Phase I 25x80mm2 Carbon/Carbon Secondary Collimators cooled for 7kW DC

Page 17: Design Review of the 1 st Rotatable Collimator (RC1) Prototype Project Overview 15 December 2005 Tom Markiewicz/SLAC BNL - FNAL- LBNL - SLAC US LHC Accelerator

RC1 Conceptual Design Review. - 15 December 2005 Project Overview - T. MarkiewiczSlide n° 17 / 34

LHC Phase I 25x80mm2 Carbon/Carbon Secondary Collimators w/ 7kW cooling

Prototypes Made & TestedFull Order Placed

Page 18: Design Review of the 1 st Rotatable Collimator (RC1) Prototype Project Overview 15 December 2005 Tom Markiewicz/SLAC BNL - FNAL- LBNL - SLAC US LHC Accelerator

RC1 Conceptual Design Review. - 15 December 2005 Project Overview - T. MarkiewiczSlide n° 18 / 34

Impedance Limits LuminosityCarbon Collimators Dominate Impedance

StableUnstable

Page 19: Design Review of the 1 st Rotatable Collimator (RC1) Prototype Project Overview 15 December 2005 Tom Markiewicz/SLAC BNL - FNAL- LBNL - SLAC US LHC Accelerator

RC1 Conceptual Design Review. - 15 December 2005 Project Overview - T. MarkiewiczSlide n° 19 / 34

Copper

Similar result was obtained by Ralph Amann

Yunhai Cai

Study of Material for Secondary Collimators

• High Z materials improve system efficiency •Copper being considered because its high thermal conductivity

• Available length for jaws is about 1 meter

• Achievable efficiency is about 3.5x10-4 at 10

•As Sixtrack program adds absorbers/tertiary collimator we expect ~x10 improvement

Carbon

Page 20: Design Review of the 1 st Rotatable Collimator (RC1) Prototype Project Overview 15 December 2005 Tom Markiewicz/SLAC BNL - FNAL- LBNL - SLAC US LHC Accelerator

The SLAC Rotatable Collimator

Studies and Prototype Design

Page 21: Design Review of the 1 st Rotatable Collimator (RC1) Prototype Project Overview 15 December 2005 Tom Markiewicz/SLAC BNL - FNAL- LBNL - SLAC US LHC Accelerator

RC1 Conceptual Design Review. - 15 December 2005 Project Overview - T. MarkiewiczSlide n° 21 / 34

R&D Plan

Design a COLLIMATOR with ROTATABLE METAL JAWS– that we can cool to ~<12kW/jaw, keeping T<TFRACTURE and PH2O<~1 atm.– that has reasonable collimation system efficiency & good impedance– that satisfies mechanical space & accuracy requirements– that, when damaged by a (rare) ASYNCH. BEAM ABORT, can still rotate

(max. 360°) in its to present a clean surface to the beam

Scope: – Tracking studies to understand efficiency and loss maps of any

proposed configuration (SixTrack)– Energy deposition studies to understand heat load under defined

“normal” conditions & damage extent in accident (FLUKA)– Engineering studies for cooling & deformation (ANSYS)– Construct 2 prototypes with eventual beam test at LHC in 2008– After technical choice by CERN, engineering support– Commissioning support after installation by CERN

Page 22: Design Review of the 1 st Rotatable Collimator (RC1) Prototype Project Overview 15 December 2005 Tom Markiewicz/SLAC BNL - FNAL- LBNL - SLAC US LHC Accelerator

RC1 Conceptual Design Review. - 15 December 2005 Project Overview - T. MarkiewiczSlide n° 22 / 34

SLAC NLC “Consumable Spoiler” as Prototype for Phase II LHC Secondary Collimator

Differences LC / LHC:•Jaw length

•10cm100cm•Maximum gap &

•2mm 4.5cm •Power deposited

•10W12 / 60kW/jaw

E. Doyle J. Frisch

Page 23: Design Review of the 1 st Rotatable Collimator (RC1) Prototype Project Overview 15 December 2005 Tom Markiewicz/SLAC BNL - FNAL- LBNL - SLAC US LHC Accelerator

RC1 Conceptual Design Review. - 15 December 2005 Project Overview - T. MarkiewiczSlide n° 23 / 34

Task#1: Timescale & Manpower

FY 2004: Introduction to projectFY 2005: Phase II CDR and set up of a collimator lab at SLACFY 2006: Design, construction & testing of RC1FY 2007: Design, construction & no-beam testing of RC2FY 2008: Ship, Install, Beam Tests of RC2 in LHC May-Oct 2008 runFY 2009: Final drawing package for CERNFY 2010: Await production & installation by CERNFY 2011: Commissioning supportRC1=Mechanical Prototype; RC2: Beam Test Prototype

Active Manpower:Eric Doyle-EngineeringLew Keller-FLUKAYunhai Cai-TrackingTom Markiewicz- IntegrationTor Raubenheimer-Design

Planned hires:Mech. Engineer#2Postdoc#1Mech. Designer

Future Effort:Controls Engineer

Page 24: Design Review of the 1 st Rotatable Collimator (RC1) Prototype Project Overview 15 December 2005 Tom Markiewicz/SLAC BNL - FNAL- LBNL - SLAC US LHC Accelerator

RC1 Conceptual Design Review. - 15 December 2005 Project Overview - T. MarkiewiczSlide n° 24 / 34

Energy Deposition in Metal Phase II Secondary Collimators w/ Carbon Phase I

Collimators Open Calculated in FLUKA using CERN-provided input file

Beam 1

Beam 2

Primary collimators

First group ofsecondarycollimators

40 m

dipoles

IR-7

Z (cm)

X (c

m)

kW Deposited in TCSH1 upper right jaw vs. length

0.01

0.10

1.00

10.00

100.00

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Z (cm)

kW/5

cm

AlWCu-H2OCu, 7 sigTiCuBeCuBe

Lew Keller

Page 25: Design Review of the 1 st Rotatable Collimator (RC1) Prototype Project Overview 15 December 2005 Tom Markiewicz/SLAC BNL - FNAL- LBNL - SLAC US LHC Accelerator

RC1 Conceptual Design Review. - 15 December 2005 Project Overview - T. MarkiewiczSlide n° 25 / 34

ANSYS 3D Time Dependent Thermal Distortion Simulations of 15cm OD,

1.2m long cylindrical jaws under 2 cooling schemes

Cu, 61C x=221 um

support

support

beambeam

Eric Doyle

Page 26: Design Review of the 1 st Rotatable Collimator (RC1) Prototype Project Overview 15 December 2005 Tom Markiewicz/SLAC BNL - FNAL- LBNL - SLAC US LHC Accelerator

RC1 Conceptual Design Review. - 15 December 2005 Project Overview - T. MarkiewiczSlide n° 26 / 34

Limitations of the Design Study

Focused on 12min beam lifetime (abort in 10 sec) case (450kW, 4E11p/s beam loss “transient” rate) [5x “engineering loss rate” or “steady state”, 150x “average loss rate”] where each jaw absorbed 58.5kWAbsolute T of material relative to a presumed fracture temperature and well-defined

melting temperatureH2O temperature relative to 100° C & need for a high pressure system

Resulting deflection due to differential thermal expansion & swelling relative to CERN specification of 25um flatness to maintain efficiency• We did not verify, nor we will justify today, the 25um spec• In the end we settled on a limit of 25um deflection into the beam which is

understandable given 200um beam size, 7sigma collimator gap & 350 MJoule beam

We did NOT focus onAccident where collimator is hit by 8 bunches with 1.15E11 p with 200um spot size

– Calculations done but temperature so high that simple FLUKA probably not valid– Material destroyed but extent of damage difficult to assess by calculation– We are now VERY concerned that extent of damage region might be important

– Plan more sophisticated calculations and eventual beam tests

Page 27: Design Review of the 1 st Rotatable Collimator (RC1) Prototype Project Overview 15 December 2005 Tom Markiewicz/SLAC BNL - FNAL- LBNL - SLAC US LHC Accelerator

RC1 Conceptual Design Review. - 15 December 2005 Project Overview - T. MarkiewiczSlide n° 27 / 34

Summary of Design Choices

MaterialsLow Z materials absorb less E but did not deliver efficiency (C, Be, Al)Ti, W, Inconel, SuperInvar did not conduct heat well, got too hot & lost

desirable properties (expansion coefficient) at high temperatureCopper looked good, was easy to work with, and was our eventual choice

DesignThin Cu designs did not seem to work:

• Very this sheets (200um Cu) were never really analyzed– without water cooling presumed to get too hot– would break in an asynchronous beam abort accident– If backed by a low Z material would blister due to differential thermal

expansion• 5mmCu

– backed (somewhat unrealistically) by water got too hot as well» seemed dangerous in the accident scenario

– Backed by Be did not perform sufficiently better to overcome anti-Be sentiment at CERN & difficulties in fabrication

Solid Cu cylinder was ultimate choice, but there is NO WAY a 1m long object can meet a 25um deflection specification when it is hit by 60kW of beam

Page 28: Design Review of the 1 st Rotatable Collimator (RC1) Prototype Project Overview 15 December 2005 Tom Markiewicz/SLAC BNL - FNAL- LBNL - SLAC US LHC Accelerator

RC1 Conceptual Design Review. - 15 December 2005 Project Overview - T. MarkiewiczSlide n° 28 / 34

Key Compromise: Relaxed mechanical deformation specifications

<25 um INTO beam guaranteed by adjustable mechanical stop(s)Ride on groove deep enough to not be damaged in accident case

<400 um AWAY FROM beam @ 0.8E1p/s loss (1mm at 4E11p/s loss)Flexible support on adjustment

Other possible solutions that treated the 1st collimator downstream of primaries differently than others were inspired by FLUKA calculations that showed that the heat loading on down beam collimators decreases sharply with distance from TCSM1 and efficiency calculations that showed that removing only 1 of 11 collimators did not decrease system efficiency.

– using carbon jaws for the first secondary– remove it completely– Increase its aperture from design value of 7sigma

Benefit of this option would have been a cost effective relaxed cooling design good for 28/30 collimators

Final decision was to go with a “as good as can be built” design because:– When jaw deflects under high load, reduced power absorption and effective

collimator length approximates cases where collimator has been removed/opened– When conditions more normal, the difficult collimator can still contribute maximally – CERN is always thinking of luminosity upgrades beyond 1E34

Page 29: Design Review of the 1 st Rotatable Collimator (RC1) Prototype Project Overview 15 December 2005 Tom Markiewicz/SLAC BNL - FNAL- LBNL - SLAC US LHC Accelerator

RC1 Conceptual Design Review. - 15 December 2005 Project Overview - T. MarkiewiczSlide n° 29 / 34

Possible Path to Immediate RC1 Prototype: Leave TCS#1 Carbon-Carbon, Remainder Cu

Inefficiency   1C-10Cu All Cu

Horizontal 2.84x10-4  3.72x10-4 

Vertical 3.63x10-4   4.36x10-4 

Skew   4.57x10-4     3.85x10-4 

Relative power/ jaw on 100 cm Long Copper Secondary Collimators for Halo on Primary Collimator TCP.C6L7 (TCPH)

(normalized to power in TCSM1 upper right jaw)

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400Distance from TCPV (m)

Pow

er lo

st (

kW)

Copper

Data courtesy of M. Santana, CERN

Page 30: Design Review of the 1 st Rotatable Collimator (RC1) Prototype Project Overview 15 December 2005 Tom Markiewicz/SLAC BNL - FNAL- LBNL - SLAC US LHC Accelerator

RC1 Conceptual Design Review. - 15 December 2005 Project Overview - T. MarkiewiczSlide n° 30 / 34

Other LHC Boundary Conditions

Mechanics must fit within CERN Phase I C-C envelope– 224mm center-to-center with 88mm OD beampipes– 1480mm longitudinal flange-to-flange– Vacuum vessel sized to provide 8mm clearance to adjacent beam and

allow gross/fine 0°, 45°, 90° positionsAdjustment

– Gap adjustable between ±5 and ±15 sigma (2-6mm) & centered on beam

– 25mm adjustment/jaw (22.5mm relative to beam w/±5mm allowed beam center motion

– Each jaw end independently moved in 10um stepsVacuum: <1E-7 Pa (1.3E-5 torr)RF: pass vetting by CERN “impedance police”Practical

– use Phase I alignment, adjustment scheme, controls, etc.– Use Phase I 27 °C input H2O / 42 °C maximum allowed return H2O

Page 31: Design Review of the 1 st Rotatable Collimator (RC1) Prototype Project Overview 15 December 2005 Tom Markiewicz/SLAC BNL - FNAL- LBNL - SLAC US LHC Accelerator

RC1 Conceptual Design Review. - 15 December 2005 Project Overview - T. MarkiewiczSlide n° 31 / 34

Final Design

Two 75cm Cu 136mm OD cylindrical jaws with 10cm tapered ends with axes connected to vertical mover shafts via flexible supports and a central adjustable stop

Thin RF foils and 9mm end-taper for RF concernsHelical tube cooling with pressurized H2O (to prevent boiling in transient

loss case) with flexible supply lines to provide 360° rotation

Page 32: Design Review of the 1 st Rotatable Collimator (RC1) Prototype Project Overview 15 December 2005 Tom Markiewicz/SLAC BNL - FNAL- LBNL - SLAC US LHC Accelerator

RC1 Conceptual Design Review. - 15 December 2005 Project Overview - T. MarkiewiczSlide n° 32 / 34

Studies Will Continue in Parallel with Construction

Tracking Studies: Hit maps for each of 11 IR7 collimators/beam and efficiency with 60cm C-C primaries and Cylindrical 75cm jaws which includes effect of tertiary collimators and absorbers

FLUKA energy deposition with 60cm primaries & cylindrical 75 cm jaws in CERN’s improved FLUKA environment

ANSYS thermal shock studies for 8-bunch accident caseStudies/experiments to verify

– assumed extent of damage in accident• Where metal slag will wind up

– acceptable peak temperature of jaw for DC useContinual engineering details: see Eric Doyle’s talk

Page 33: Design Review of the 1 st Rotatable Collimator (RC1) Prototype Project Overview 15 December 2005 Tom Markiewicz/SLAC BNL - FNAL- LBNL - SLAC US LHC Accelerator

RC1 Conceptual Design Review. - 15 December 2005 Project Overview - T. MarkiewiczSlide n° 33 / 34

Interaction of Phase II Project with CERN

Collaboration– Email– Monthly video meeting with active discussion– Transfer of codes, drawings & eventually sub-assemblies– Several face-to-face working meetings

CERN Phase II program is beginningCERN will concentrate on alternative metal designs

A decision on which course to pursue will be taken after operational experience with Phase I system, LHC performance, and beam tests of several prototype designs are considered

In all cases, knowledge from SLAC Phase II prototype is deemed valuable input and regardless of final technology choice for Phase II, SLAC will participate in Phase I & Phase II commissioning.

Page 34: Design Review of the 1 st Rotatable Collimator (RC1) Prototype Project Overview 15 December 2005 Tom Markiewicz/SLAC BNL - FNAL- LBNL - SLAC US LHC Accelerator

RC1 Conceptual Design Review. - 15 December 2005 Project Overview - T. MarkiewiczSlide n° 34 / 34

My Wish for Your Conclusion

“We find that sufficient studies have been done to justify the proposed design and that, while there are more questions to be answered and details to incorporate, given the time pressure of a 2008 run, the team must begin it’s prototype construction and testing program.”

+

Any comments on design variants, tests, materials, etc. that your expertise allows you to make.

Thanks for your attention!

Page 35: Design Review of the 1 st Rotatable Collimator (RC1) Prototype Project Overview 15 December 2005 Tom Markiewicz/SLAC BNL - FNAL- LBNL - SLAC US LHC Accelerator

Bonus Slides

Page 36: Design Review of the 1 st Rotatable Collimator (RC1) Prototype Project Overview 15 December 2005 Tom Markiewicz/SLAC BNL - FNAL- LBNL - SLAC US LHC Accelerator

RC1 Conceptual Design Review. - 15 December 2005 Project Overview - T. MarkiewiczSlide n° 36 / 34

IR3 Collimator Layout

Page 37: Design Review of the 1 st Rotatable Collimator (RC1) Prototype Project Overview 15 December 2005 Tom Markiewicz/SLAC BNL - FNAL- LBNL - SLAC US LHC Accelerator

RC1 Conceptual Design Review. - 15 December 2005 Project Overview - T. MarkiewiczSlide n° 37 / 34

Quench Protection Sets Maximum Current Given Collimator System Inefficiency

7.6E6 p/m/s @ 7 TeV12min

2E-5Desired

2E-4Phase II

(assumes 1m Cu)

11E-4Phase I

Nom. I

Intensity Inefficiency

4E11 p/s x 2E-5 = 8E6 p/s corresponds to stated

quench limit in Q3 given maximum dQ/dV