E. Todesco

DESIGN STUDY FOR THE LHC UPGRADEWP3: MAGNETS

E. TodescoCERN, Geneva, Switzerland

With inputs from L. Rossi

CERN, 20th July 2010

E. Todesco 20th July 2010 – HL-LHC Design study: Magnets - 2

GOAL 0: SHOPPING LIST

Common technologiesRadiation resistance estimates and materials Task 1

Needed magnetsLarge aperture single-bore quadrupoles (Q1-Q3)

MQXC – Nb-Ti version Task 2MQXD – Nb3Sn version Task 3

Separation dipoles Task 4

D1D2 (needed?)

Correctors Task 5

Nested correctorLarge aperture double bore quadrupoles (Q4-Q5) Task 6

PlusCold powering Task 7

First guess on tasks, to be discussed

E. Todesco 20th July 2010 – HL-LHC Design study: Magnets - 3

GOAL 1: TARGETS

Establish the targets for the hardwareFor each magnet, we need to establish

Size, aperture or field /gradient and lengthIn some cases we will probably have to define a range and make a detailed study for the extreme cases

Target on performanceTraining, detraining, behaviour after thermal cycle …

Target on field quality, alignment Radiation resistance

New scenario w.r.t. phase I – they should last up to 2030 and 3000 fb-1

Cryogenic loads

Targets to be agreed with WP2 and other actors involvedA lot of work done for Phase-I (SLHC-PP) – integrate the new scenario after Chamonix (only one upgrade in ~2020)

E. Todesco 20th July 2010 – HL-LHC Design study: Magnets - 4

GOAL 1: TARGETS

For the triplet package, profiting of the work done for Phase-I [R. Ostojic et al., LHC PR 1163] – review of the targets for MQXC

New scenario for radiation resistance and cryogenic load

Twice the peak luminosity (from 2.3×1034 to 5×1034 cm-1 s-2) Should resist to 3000 fb-1 (or 1500 fb-1 minimum, if we assume 5 years lifetime) instead of 300 fb-1 as specified for Phase I

For the Nb3Sn option MQXDWhat is the range of apertures?

Define a min and a max – gradient and length will follow

Can we simply adopt the same targets as for the MQXC?

Establish asap a target listWork in progress [G. De Rijk]

E. Todesco 20th July 2010 – HL-LHC Design study: Magnets - 5

GOAL 2: FEASABILITY OF THE HARDWARE

Study of the feasibility of the hardwareTo be verified on short models, tested in conditions similar as much as possible to operational conditionsMain issues

Length: is 1-m-long model enough for proving the technology?

Should we go to 2-m-long short model also for Nb3Sn

3.4 m is enough ?

Cryogenic condition during test is different from the machine

Synergy with several ongoing programsLARP: Nb3Sn quadrupoles for the triplet

EUCARD: Nb3Sn development, cold powering

SLHC-PP: Nb-Ti quadrupoles for the triplet

E. Todesco 20th July 2010 – HL-LHC Design study: Magnets - 6

GOAL 2: FEASABILITY OF THE HARDWARE

MQXC (Nb-Ti triplet)120 mm aperture: a few short models to be built (SLHC-PP)Done:

Design completed [P. Fessia et al, SLHC PR 0001 – S. Russenschuck, Chamonix 2010]

Now construction phaseNo need for a study at 110 or 100 mm aperture

Test for mid 2011 – to be followedThermal aspects very relevant

New insulation scheme to be tested

New insulation scheme [D. Tommasini]MQXC cross-section

E. Todesco 20th July 2010 – HL-LHC Design study: Magnets - 7

GOAL 2: FEASABILITY OF THE HARDWARE

MQXD (Nb3Sn triplet)120 mm aperture HQ (LARP)First test done

80% reached, but problems with insulationEvolution to be followed

Is this magnet already satisfying the targets ? What is missing?How many we need to assess field quality?

Design studies (LARP)

Is this structure the final one? A study of a larger aperture option (150 mm)

Evaluation of stresses – structure – costs

Study of the minimal size of interconnections If we have to go for a 3.4 m long magnet, how much do we lose ?

HQ cross-section

E. Todesco 20th July 2010 – HL-LHC Design study: Magnets - 8

GOAL 2: FEASABILITY OF THE HARDWARE

Nested dipole correctorsContinuing the activity of Phase-I [M. Karppinen]

Review the specifications to make them compatible with new scenarioFinalize design and construct a model

Cold powering (superconducting link)Study the powering of the magnets involved in the upgradeVerify the consistency with the present program of consolidation [A. Ballarino et al.]

Dipole corrector (not nested) cross-section for Phase I [M. Karpinnen]

Lay-out of powering for Phase I [A. Ballarino]

E. Todesco 20th July 2010 – HL-LHC Design study: Magnets - 9

GOAL 2: FEASABILITY OF THE HARDWARE

D1 (separation dipole)Review specifications given for Phase I – WP2 info neededStudy two options: a large aperture (180 mm) and a small aperture ?Nb-Ti option from BNL (profit of work done by APUL)Nb3Al option from KEK

What range of fields?

Q4 (matching section quadrupoles)Requirements to go to larger apertureNothing has been done up to nowDesign study:

Maximal aperture for a 2-in-1 quadrupole with 194 mm separation

MQY cross-section

E. Todesco 20th July 2010 – HL-LHC Design study: Magnets - 10

GOAL 3: DESIGN STUDY

Final goal: participate to the conceptual design report

Offer performance vs cost for a few options

In most cases technical decisions have to be adopted on the main design choices of the hardwareIn a few cases different options can be studied, cost estimated tso that the management can decide on performance VS cost

To be able to give a reasonable estimate of the schedule needed to build some hardware

E. Todesco 20th July 2010 – HL-LHC Design study: Magnets - 11

PARTNERS (TENTATIVE LIST)

EU:CEA- Saclay (Fr)CIEMAT (Sp)LASA – INFN Milano (It)STFC (Uk)University of Geneva (Ch)

WorldLARP: FNAL, BNL, LBL (Us)KEK (Jp)