the larp collimation program 13 june 2006 larp doe review - fermilab tom markiewicz/slac bnl - fnal-...

62
The LARP Collimation Program 13 June 2006 LARP DOE Review - Fermilab Tom Markiewicz/SLAC BNL - FNAL- LBNL - SLAC US LHC Accelerator Research Program

Upload: ilene-floyd

Post on 26-Dec-2015

218 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: The LARP Collimation Program 13 June 2006 LARP DOE Review - Fermilab Tom Markiewicz/SLAC BNL - FNAL- LBNL - SLAC US LHC Accelerator Research Program

The LARP Collimation Program

13 June 2006

LARP DOE Review - Fermilab

Tom Markiewicz/SLAC

BNL - FNAL- LBNL - SLAC

US LHC Accelerator Research Program

Page 2: The LARP Collimation Program 13 June 2006 LARP DOE Review - Fermilab Tom Markiewicz/SLAC BNL - FNAL- LBNL - SLAC US LHC Accelerator Research Program

LARP DOE Review - 13 June 2006 Collimation Tasks - T. MarkiewiczSlide n° 2 / 51

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 sec

Collimation 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 3: The LARP Collimation Program 13 June 2006 LARP DOE Review - Fermilab Tom Markiewicz/SLAC BNL - FNAL- LBNL - SLAC US LHC Accelerator Research Program

LARP DOE Review - 13 June 2006 Collimation Tasks - T. MarkiewiczSlide n° 3 / 51

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 1 MJ will impact collimator jaws

Page 4: The LARP Collimation Program 13 June 2006 LARP DOE Review - Fermilab Tom Markiewicz/SLAC BNL - FNAL- LBNL - SLAC US LHC Accelerator Research Program

LARP DOE Review - 13 June 2006 Collimation Tasks - T. MarkiewiczSlide n° 4 / 51

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 5: The LARP Collimation Program 13 June 2006 LARP DOE Review - Fermilab Tom Markiewicz/SLAC BNL - FNAL- LBNL - SLAC US LHC Accelerator Research Program

LARP DOE Review - 13 June 2006 Collimation Tasks - T. MarkiewiczSlide n° 5 / 51

IR7 Collimator Layout 11 Carbon Phase I and 11 Metal Phase II

Secondary Collimators per beam in IR7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Beam Direction

Primary Collimators

Hard Hit Secondary Collimators

Page 6: The LARP Collimation Program 13 June 2006 LARP DOE Review - Fermilab Tom Markiewicz/SLAC BNL - FNAL- LBNL - SLAC US LHC Accelerator Research Program

LARP DOE Review - 13 June 2006 Collimation Tasks - T. MarkiewiczSlide n° 6 / 51

Impedance Limits LuminosityCarbon Collimators Dominate Impedance

StableUnstable

Page 7: The LARP Collimation Program 13 June 2006 LARP DOE Review - Fermilab Tom Markiewicz/SLAC BNL - FNAL- LBNL - SLAC US LHC Accelerator Research Program

LARP DOE Review - 13 June 2006 Collimation Tasks - T. MarkiewiczSlide n° 7 / 51

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 8: The LARP Collimation Program 13 June 2006 LARP DOE Review - Fermilab Tom Markiewicz/SLAC BNL - FNAL- LBNL - SLAC US LHC Accelerator Research Program

LARP DOE Review - 13 June 2006 Collimation Tasks - T. MarkiewiczSlide n° 8 / 51

Four LARP Collimation Program Tasks:Address Efficiency, Reliability and Design of Phase I &

Propose a possible solution for Phase II

Use RHIC data to benchmark the code used to predict the cleaning efficiency of the LHC collimation system and develop and test algorithms for setting collimator gaps that can be applied at the LHC

Responsible: Angelika Drees, BNL [Task #2]

Understand and improve the design of the tertiary collimation system that protects the LHC final focusing magnets and experiments

Responsible: Nikolai Mokhov, FNAL [Task #3]

Study, design, prototype and test collimators that can be dropped into 32 reserved lattice locations as a part of the “Phase II Collimation Upgrade” required if the LHC is to reach its nominal 1E34 luminosity

Responsible: Tom Markiewicz, SLAC [Task #1]

Use the facilities and expertise available at BNL and FNAL to irradiate and then measure the properties of the materials that will be used for phase 1 and phase 2 collimator jaws [proposed new work package]

Responsable: Nick Simos, BNL [Task #4]

Page 9: The LARP Collimation Program 13 June 2006 LARP DOE Review - Fermilab Tom Markiewicz/SLAC BNL - FNAL- LBNL - SLAC US LHC Accelerator Research Program

LARP DOE Review - 13 June 2006 Collimation Tasks - T. MarkiewiczSlide n° 9 / 51

Task 2: Use RHIC Data to Benchmark LHC Tracking Codes

Scope: – Install SixTrackwColl particle tracking code at BNL and configure it

to simulate RHIC performance for both ions and protons.– Take systematic proton and ion data and compare observed beam

loss with predictions– Test (and perhaps help to develop) algorithms proposed for the

automatic set up of a large number of collimators

Resources Required:– 50% postdoc/student + supervision + travel

Timescale:– Now until LHC beam commissioning

Comments– Preliminary data taken; comparison programs being improved– Postdoc search ongoing

Page 10: The LARP Collimation Program 13 June 2006 LARP DOE Review - Fermilab Tom Markiewicz/SLAC BNL - FNAL- LBNL - SLAC US LHC Accelerator Research Program

LARP DOE Review - 13 June 2006 Collimation Tasks - T. MarkiewiczSlide n° 10 / 51

Task 2: Progress Since June 2005 DOE Review

State of affairs June 2005: Ion loss maps in RHIC agree with tracking results, protons do not.

Since then, no progress : analysis of proton loss data awaiting manpower– hope is that CERN student who set up Sixtrack with BNL lattice will

take BNL postdoc jobNew work on Collimator efficiency & set up

– Heavy Ions and protons very different– positioning procedure for p is slow and tedious and not reproducible– For protons, the effectiveness of the individual collimators changes

from store to store and between the IRsOther LARP (not collimation) activities:

– LBL luminosity monitor installed in RHIC IR10 between existing luminosity detectors for calibration later this year

– E-cloud studies with LHC style electron detectors installed in IR10

Electron Detector in RHIC

Page 11: The LARP Collimation Program 13 June 2006 LARP DOE Review - Fermilab Tom Markiewicz/SLAC BNL - FNAL- LBNL - SLAC US LHC Accelerator Research Program

LARP DOE Review - 13 June 2006 Collimation Tasks - T. MarkiewiczSlide n° 11 / 51

RHIC Tracking Results

-100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 3000

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Lo

g o

f lo

ss

es

(a

rb. u

nit

s)

distance from PHENIX (m)

Comparison ICOSIM (black) with BLM data during gap cleaning

PH

EN

IX

PH

OB

OS

12 o

'clo

ck

BR

AH

MS

4 o

'clo

ck

S

TA

R

Ions Agree

With

“ICOSIM”

Protons Data does not agree

Page 12: The LARP Collimation Program 13 June 2006 LARP DOE Review - Fermilab Tom Markiewicz/SLAC BNL - FNAL- LBNL - SLAC US LHC Accelerator Research Program

LARP DOE Review - 13 June 2006 Collimation Tasks - T. MarkiewiczSlide n° 12 / 51

Task 3: Model tertiary collimators at the LHC experimental insertions

Scope: – CERN FLUKA team occupied with collimation system performance

throughout ring and need help understanding beam loss & backgrounds at the EXPERIMENTAL AREAS

– MARS team at Fermilab experienced & well equippedResources Required:

– 25% postdoc + supervision + travelTimescale:

– Now until LHC beam commissioningStatus

– Initial results promising; More detailed simulations planned• Determine Efficiency of TCT and Relative performance of W vs. Cu• Engineering Studies, Accident Studies, More realistic Halo, Sensitivity

studies

– Once 3 more files of input data become available, task can be completed within 6 months and closed down

Page 13: The LARP Collimation Program 13 June 2006 LARP DOE Review - Fermilab Tom Markiewicz/SLAC BNL - FNAL- LBNL - SLAC US LHC Accelerator Research Program

LARP DOE Review - 13 June 2006 Collimation Tasks - T. MarkiewiczSlide n° 13 / 51

June 2005 StatusModeling tertiary collimators in IP5 and CMS

1m Cu TCTV and TCTH @ z~150m

25mm x 80mm jaws @ 8.4

1mW/gm @ 106 p/s

150m

Page 14: The LARP Collimation Program 13 June 2006 LARP DOE Review - Fermilab Tom Markiewicz/SLAC BNL - FNAL- LBNL - SLAC US LHC Accelerator Research Program

LARP DOE Review - 13 June 2006 Collimation Tasks - T. MarkiewiczSlide n° 14 / 51

TCT-Induced Energy Deposition in Triplet Quads and Backgrounds entering CMS/ATLAS

Peak Energy deposition of 0.35mW/g in Q3 SC coils at MAX @ z~50m @ 106 p/s and

design spec of Q<0.53mW/gm max loss rate at TCT ~ 2 x 106 p/s

~1000 photons/cm2/s @ 106 p/s scraped ~ physics backgrounds

Photon Flux

Page 15: The LARP Collimation Program 13 June 2006 LARP DOE Review - Fermilab Tom Markiewicz/SLAC BNL - FNAL- LBNL - SLAC US LHC Accelerator Research Program

LARP DOE Review - 13 June 2006 Collimation Tasks - T. MarkiewiczSlide n° 15 / 51

Example of New MARS15 RESULTSafter upgrades to Mars code and updates to layout

• Outgoing beam: TCTs are pretty radioactive (especially if made of tungsten) and interfere with the TOTEM first station XRP1 at 146 m.

• Incoming beam: preliminary results for beam-gas are encouraging.

Page 16: The LARP Collimation Program 13 June 2006 LARP DOE Review - Fermilab Tom Markiewicz/SLAC BNL - FNAL- LBNL - SLAC US LHC Accelerator Research Program

LARP DOE Review - 13 June 2006 Collimation Tasks - T. MarkiewiczSlide n° 16 / 51

Task#1: Phase II Metal Collimators

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°) 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 17: The LARP Collimation Program 13 June 2006 LARP DOE Review - Fermilab Tom Markiewicz/SLAC BNL - FNAL- LBNL - SLAC US LHC Accelerator Research Program

LARP DOE Review - 13 June 2006 Collimation Tasks - T. MarkiewiczSlide n° 17 / 51

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 18: The LARP Collimation Program 13 June 2006 LARP DOE Review - Fermilab Tom Markiewicz/SLAC BNL - FNAL- LBNL - SLAC US LHC Accelerator Research Program

LARP DOE Review - 13 June 2006 Collimation Tasks - T. MarkiewiczSlide n° 18 / 51

Task Status SummaryTrying to Move from Design Mode to Build Mode

Original Plan (FY06 Task sheet)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

Deliverables listed 10/6/20051. Final version of RC1 Conceptual Design Report (CDR)

2. External review of RC1 CDR

3. Thermal tests of single collimator jaw

4. Construct and mechanically test RC1

5. Performance report on RC1 tests

Page 19: The LARP Collimation Program 13 June 2006 LARP DOE Review - Fermilab Tom Markiewicz/SLAC BNL - FNAL- LBNL - SLAC US LHC Accelerator Research Program

LARP DOE Review - 13 June 2006 Collimation Tasks - T. MarkiewiczSlide n° 19 / 51

FLUKA Energy Deposition StudiesMaterial Study & Input to ANSYS

Beam 1

Beam 2

Primary collimators

First group ofsecondarycollimators

40 m

dipoles

IR-7

Z (cm)

X (

cm)

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 c

m

Al

W

Cu-H2O

Cu, 7 sig

Ti

Cu

Be

CuBe

Lew Keller

Use CERN-provided hit maps from tracking program to calculate energy deposited in metal Phase II Secondary Collimators at opened to 7 sigma

Page 20: The LARP Collimation Program 13 June 2006 LARP DOE Review - Fermilab Tom Markiewicz/SLAC BNL - FNAL- LBNL - SLAC US LHC Accelerator Research Program

LARP DOE Review - 13 June 2006 Collimation Tasks - T. MarkiewiczSlide n° 20 / 51

ANSYS 3D Time Dependent Thermal Distortion Studies

Material & Water temperature and jaw deflection used to specify– Study materials and material combinations (Copper)– Axial or Helical cooling schemes (Helical)– Jaw support schemes (see detailed discussion later)

Design for beam=1 hour (12kW/jaw for Cu) continuous load with beam=12 min (60kW/jaw for Cu) transient for 10 seconds

beambeam

Eric Doyle

86C x=394 m

Spec: 25msupport

support

Steady State operation

Page 21: The LARP Collimation Program 13 June 2006 LARP DOE Review - Fermilab Tom Markiewicz/SLAC BNL - FNAL- LBNL - SLAC US LHC Accelerator Research Program

LARP DOE Review - 13 June 2006 Collimation Tasks - T. MarkiewiczSlide n° 21 / 51

Material thermal performance (Hollow Cylinder Model)- O.D = 150 mm, I.D. = 100 mm, L = 1.2 m- NLC-type edge supports

material co

oli

ng

arc

(d

eg

)

po

we

r (k

W)

pe

r ja

w

Tm

ax

(

C)

de

fl (

um

)

Tm

ax

wa

ter

sid

e(

C)

po

we

r (k

W)

Tm

ax

(

C)

de

fl (

um

)

Tm

ax

wa

ter

sid

e(

C)

BeCu (94:6) 360 0.9 24 20 4.3 41 95Cu 360 10.4 61 221 43 52.0 195 829 117Cu - 5mm 360 4.5 42 117 39 22.4 129 586 117Cu/Be (5mm/20mm) 360 5.3 53 161Super Invar 360 10.8 866 152 60Inconel 718 360 10.8 790 1039 66 54.0 1520 1509 85Titanium 360 7.4 214 591 42 36.8 534 1197 77Tungsten 360 14.9 183 95 79 74.5 700 335 240Al 360 3.7 33 143 18.5 73 5272219 Al 360 4.6 34 149 26 23.0 79 559 46C R4550 graphite 360 0.6 25 5 3.0 41 20

10, primary debris + 5% direct hits

SS @ 1 hour beam life transient 10 sec @ 12 min beam

Page 22: The LARP Collimation Program 13 June 2006 LARP DOE Review - Fermilab Tom Markiewicz/SLAC BNL - FNAL- LBNL - SLAC US LHC Accelerator Research Program

LARP DOE Review - 13 June 2006 Collimation Tasks - T. MarkiewiczSlide n° 22 / 51

material reasons for rejection in favor of Cu

BeCu (6% Cu-loaded Be)Be is prohibited by CERN management, except when no alternatives exist; low cleaning efficiency; fabrication difficulty

Super Invarpoor thermal conductivity => high temperature (866C); desirable properties (low thermal expansion coefficient) disappear at 200C

Inconel 718

poor thermal conductivity => high temperature (Tmp = 1400C < 1520C transient peak) & very high deflection (1039um SS, 1509um transient)

Titanium poor thermal conductivity => deflection 2.7 x Cu (591um, SS)

TungstenHigh temperature on water side (240C => ~30bar to suppress boiling); high power density - can't transfer heat without boiling

Aluminumrelatively poor cleaning efficiency, water channel fabrication difficulty

Cu - 5mm walldeflection only ~50% lower than 25mm Cu, loss of safety zone between surface and water channels

Cu/Be (5mm/20mm)deflection only ~30% lower than 25mm Cu; Be prohibition; fabrication difficulty

Cu chosen as best balance between collimation efficiency, thermal distortion & manufacturability

Page 23: The LARP Collimation Program 13 June 2006 LARP DOE Review - Fermilab Tom Markiewicz/SLAC BNL - FNAL- LBNL - SLAC US LHC Accelerator Research Program

LARP DOE Review - 13 June 2006 Collimation Tasks - T. MarkiewiczSlide n° 23 / 51

Adapted to LHC Phase II Requirements

beam

beam

•136mm diameter x 950 mm long jaws (750 mm effective length due to taper).

•Vacuum tank, jaw support mechanism and support base derived from CERN Phase I.

Page 24: The LARP Collimation Program 13 June 2006 LARP DOE Review - Fermilab Tom Markiewicz/SLAC BNL - FNAL- LBNL - SLAC US LHC Accelerator Research Program

Helical cooling passages chosen for manufacturability & beamline vacuum safety

Per CERN’s Phase I design – no water-vacuum weld or braze

EXTERNAL COIL PERMITS 1 REV OF JAW

CERN PHASE I JAW POSITIONING MECHANISM – USE IF POSSIBLE

Note: baseline case has hollow core

Page 25: The LARP Collimation Program 13 June 2006 LARP DOE Review - Fermilab Tom Markiewicz/SLAC BNL - FNAL- LBNL - SLAC US LHC Accelerator Research Program

LARP DOE Review - 13 June 2006 Collimation Tasks - T. MarkiewiczSlide n° 25 / 51

Collimator TCSM.A6L7 Cooling scheme Helical Axial (36o)

# channels 1 2 Diam (m) .008 .006 Velocity (m/s) 3 3

Cooling

Total flow (l/min) 9 10 SS Power (kW) 11.7 Beam heat Trans Power (kW) 58.5

Jaw peak 86.5 91.5 Cooling chan. peak 68.3 69.7

SS

Water out 36.0 36.1 Jaw peak 231 223 Cooling chan. peak 154 130

Temp (C )

Trans

Water out 43.6 47 SS 394 107 Deflection (um) 4 Trans 1216 778 SS 43 75 Eff. length (cm) 5 Trans 24 31

Exceeds 200 Max Cu temp

Possible boiling

Exceeds 42 max water return temp

Exceeds Allowed Deflections

All temperature simulations based on 20C supply. For CERN 27C supply add 7 to all temperature results. CERN max water return temp 42C

Exceeds spec, or other possible problem as noted

Baseline Jaw Performance

Baseline: hollow Cu, 25mm wall, helical cooling - 5cm pitch

Page 26: The LARP Collimation Program 13 June 2006 LARP DOE Review - Fermilab Tom Markiewicz/SLAC BNL - FNAL- LBNL - SLAC US LHC Accelerator Research Program

LARP DOE Review - 13 June 2006 Collimation Tasks - T. MarkiewiczSlide n° 26 / 51

IR7 secondary collimators heat generation, deflection and effective length

Deflection and effective length based on ANSYS simulations for TCSM.A6L7. Power scaled from TCSM.A6L7 according to the distribution on secondary collimators provided by CERN. Note: first collimator in the series absorbs the

bulk of the energy.

No. name Power (kW)

Defl (um)

Eff. Lngth (cm)

Power (kW)

Defl (um)

Eff. Lngth (cm)

note

1 TCSM.A6L7 11.7 394 43 58.5 1216 24 simulated 2 TCSM.B5L7 2.7 137 75 13.5 422 46 scaled 3 TCSM.A5L7 .69 35 75 3.44 108 75 scaled 4 TCSM.D4L7 .18 9 75 .92 29 75 scaled 5 TCSM.B4L7 .20 10 75 1.01 31 75 scaled 6 TCSM.A4L7 .19 10 75 .96 30 75 scaled 7 TCSM.A4R7 .16 8 75 .81 25 75 scaled 8 TCSM.B5R7 .22 11 75 1.10 34 75 scaled 9 TCSM.D5R7 .19 9 75 .93 29 75 scaled 10 TCSM.E5R7 .13 6 75 .62 19 75 scaled 11 TCSM.6R7 .25 12 75 1.23 26 75 scaled

Steady State Transient

Page 27: The LARP Collimation Program 13 June 2006 LARP DOE Review - Fermilab Tom Markiewicz/SLAC BNL - FNAL- LBNL - SLAC US LHC Accelerator Research Program

LARP DOE Review - 13 June 2006 Collimation Tasks - T. MarkiewiczSlide n° 27 / 51

Adjustable central aperture-defining stop

Stop in/out position controls aperture, actuator external, works through bellows.

Leaf springs allow jaw end motion up to 1mm away from beam

Page 28: The LARP Collimation Program 13 June 2006 LARP DOE Review - Fermilab Tom Markiewicz/SLAC BNL - FNAL- LBNL - SLAC US LHC Accelerator Research Program

LARP DOE Review - 13 June 2006 Collimation Tasks - T. MarkiewiczSlide n° 28 / 51

RF Contact Scheme Blessed by CERN Impedance Police

Rigid round-square transition

Spring loaded fingers ground two jaws through range of motion

Jaw support & gap adjustment borrowed from CERN

Page 29: The LARP Collimation Program 13 June 2006 LARP DOE Review - Fermilab Tom Markiewicz/SLAC BNL - FNAL- LBNL - SLAC US LHC Accelerator Research Program

LARP DOE Review - 13 June 2006 Collimation Tasks - T. MarkiewiczSlide n° 29 / 51

Agreement with CERN Team @ 15-June-2005 Meeting despite Known RC1 Unresolved Engineering Issues

• Jaw positioning

– Design concept for central stop: gap adjust, 5 central position float,..

– Bearings & springs attaching jaws to vertical movers

– Load capacity of steppers

– Jaw alignment perpendicular to collimation direction

• Jaw rotation

– Specification of mechanism on crowded jaw

– Force required to rotate jaws against cooling coil

• Misc

– Spring arrangement for H, V, S orientations

– Springs to ensure that device fails open

– Damage assessment mechanism (?)

– Motors, cables, temperature sensors, position probes, …

– Vacuum requirements of 7.5E-10 torr

– Interference between RF shield and other components

Page 30: The LARP Collimation Program 13 June 2006 LARP DOE Review - Fermilab Tom Markiewicz/SLAC BNL - FNAL- LBNL - SLAC US LHC Accelerator Research Program

LARP DOE Review - 13 June 2006 Collimation Tasks - T. MarkiewiczSlide n° 30 / 51

Progress of Phase II Rotating Collimator Project in first half of FY06

RC1 Prototype Conceptual Design Report– reviewed and accepted by CERN and suggestions incorporated

• rf shielding concept approved

– current version 12-12-2005 • http://www-project.slac.stanford.edu/ilc/larp/

Independent review of project and CDR 12/15/05– Lou Bertolini-LLNL, Alex Makarov-FNAL, Bill Turner (LBL)– Charge:

• Is the design presented mature enough that the project can proceed to construct the first prototype?

– Major Findings: http://www-project.slac.stanford.edu/ilc/larp/ReviewersReportFINAL.pdf

• Do not ‘cut metal’ until jaw support, stop and rotation scheme developed

– In progress: New ideas result in better performance & simplifications

• Check thin-Cu over Stainless for performance √ No improvement

• Increase engineering effort

Page 31: The LARP Collimation Program 13 June 2006 LARP DOE Review - Fermilab Tom Markiewicz/SLAC BNL - FNAL- LBNL - SLAC US LHC Accelerator Research Program

LARP DOE Review - 13 June 2006 Collimation Tasks - T. MarkiewiczSlide n° 31 / 51

Advances since RC1 Baseline

Page 32: The LARP Collimation Program 13 June 2006 LARP DOE Review - Fermilab Tom Markiewicz/SLAC BNL - FNAL- LBNL - SLAC US LHC Accelerator Research Program

LARP DOE Review - 13 June 2006 Collimation Tasks - T. MarkiewiczSlide n° 32 / 51

New Idea to Eliminate Central Stop

1. Hub located, in Z, near peak temperature location, which lowers peak temperature, reducing gradient and bending.

2. Both ends of jaw deflect away from beam.

3. Total deflection reduced if the shaft deflection can be minimized

4. Cooling coils embedded in I.D. of outer cylinder.

Page 33: The LARP Collimation Program 13 June 2006 LARP DOE Review - Fermilab Tom Markiewicz/SLAC BNL - FNAL- LBNL - SLAC US LHC Accelerator Research Program

LARP DOE Review - 13 June 2006 Collimation Tasks - T. MarkiewiczSlide n° 33 / 51

Evolution of jaw-hub-shaft25mm deep cooling tubes

SS 1hr beam

Transient 10sec @12min beam

RC1 – not a practical support scheme

More realistic

Note reduced shaft end deflection – a positive result if stop is used

Next for jaw-hub-shaft:

Alternative materials to reduce shaft deflection

shaft end

deflection reference jaw edge shaft central stop central stopbaseline (25mm) 394 426 36 390refined baseline (25mm) - 238 24 214jaw-hub-shaft (25mm) - 98 48 50

baseline (25mm) 1216 1260 97 1163refined baseline (25mm) - 853 76 777jaw-hub-shaft (25mm) - 232 179 53

jaw max toward beam

Page 34: The LARP Collimation Program 13 June 2006 LARP DOE Review - Fermilab Tom Markiewicz/SLAC BNL - FNAL- LBNL - SLAC US LHC Accelerator Research Program

LARP DOE Review - 13 June 2006 Collimation Tasks - T. MarkiewiczSlide n° 34 / 51

NLC Jaw Indexing Mechanism

Reciprocating linear motion advances jaw by one or more ratchet pitches. LHC system will require opposing ratchet to hold jaw position against cooling tube deformation torque. Mechanism probably will be designed to actuate only when jaw fully retracted.

Page 35: The LARP Collimation Program 13 June 2006 LARP DOE Review - Fermilab Tom Markiewicz/SLAC BNL - FNAL- LBNL - SLAC US LHC Accelerator Research Program

LARP DOE Review - 13 June 2006 Collimation Tasks - T. MarkiewiczSlide n° 35 / 51

Personnel Issues

Full time engineer (Steve Lundgren) and full time designer hired 3 April

Several post doc and fixed term candidates interviewed

Spending in SLAC shops has begun for thermal tests

Active Manpower:Eric Doyle-Engineering (0.25)Lew Keller-FLUKA (0.25)Steve Lundgren-Engineering (1.0)Tom Markiewicz- Integration (0.20)Designer (1.0)

Meeting/advice:Tor RaubenheimerAndrei SeryiJoe FrischYunhai Cai-Tracking

Planned hires:Postdoc#1

Future Effort:Controls Engineer

Page 36: The LARP Collimation Program 13 June 2006 LARP DOE Review - Fermilab Tom Markiewicz/SLAC BNL - FNAL- LBNL - SLAC US LHC Accelerator Research Program

LARP DOE Review - 13 June 2006 Collimation Tasks - T. MarkiewiczSlide n° 36 / 51

Current Experimental Activities Consistent with Review Committee Dictum to Delay Construction

Until Mechanical Design Complete

• Braze tests of cooling coils in progress: procedures defined• Prep for full cooling & deformation tests: parts & lab defined• Acquisition of Phase I support & mover assemblies: quote “in the mail”• Remodeling of CERN parts for interface to US parts: designer

Note faceted face: Vertical Alignment & “Drip Edge”

Page 37: The LARP Collimation Program 13 June 2006 LARP DOE Review - Fermilab Tom Markiewicz/SLAC BNL - FNAL- LBNL - SLAC US LHC Accelerator Research Program

LARP DOE Review - 13 June 2006 Collimation Tasks - T. MarkiewiczSlide n° 37 / 51

Brazing Tests Cooling Tube

Jaw Center Mandrel

~100 mm

~70 mmdia

~100 mm dia

Page 38: The LARP Collimation Program 13 June 2006 LARP DOE Review - Fermilab Tom Markiewicz/SLAC BNL - FNAL- LBNL - SLAC US LHC Accelerator Research Program

LARP DOE Review - 13 June 2006 Collimation Tasks - T. MarkiewiczSlide n° 38 / 51

Concept to Eliminate 4-Loop Coils at Ends

Restrain each tube on centerline of bearing

200mm

136mm dia

Page 39: The LARP Collimation Program 13 June 2006 LARP DOE Review - Fermilab Tom Markiewicz/SLAC BNL - FNAL- LBNL - SLAC US LHC Accelerator Research Program

LARP DOE Review - 13 June 2006 Collimation Tasks - T. MarkiewiczSlide n° 39 / 51

Reinvigorated Focus on Extent of Damaged Region in the case of the Accident

2000um 500 kW 20 GeV e- beam hitting a 30cm Cu block a few mm from edge for 1.3 sec (0.65 MJ)

FNAL Collimator with .5 MJ

Page 40: The LARP Collimation Program 13 June 2006 LARP DOE Review - Fermilab Tom Markiewicz/SLAC BNL - FNAL- LBNL - SLAC US LHC Accelerator Research Program

LARP DOE Review - 13 June 2006 Collimation Tasks - T. MarkiewiczSlide n° 40 / 51

Cross Section at Shower Maximum Showing Copper Melting and Possible Fracture Regions in a Mis-steering Accident

CopperJaw

Melting zone (grey),radius = 3.3 mm

Fracture zone, (200 C)radius = 7 mm

2.5 cm

~1MJ

Keller, Doyle

Page 41: The LARP Collimation Program 13 June 2006 LARP DOE Review - Fermilab Tom Markiewicz/SLAC BNL - FNAL- LBNL - SLAC US LHC Accelerator Research Program

LARP DOE Review - 13 June 2006 Collimation Tasks - T. MarkiewiczSlide n° 41 / 51

Inter-Lab Collaboration

Good will & cooperation unfortunately limited only by busy work loads– CERN review of SLAC draft CDR– CERN participation in RC1 CDR review– Monthly video meetings – Drawing of support structures for H, V Skew transferred– Many technical exchanges via email– Discussions on how to improve communication delays in progress

Acquisition of parts will be crucial to delivering prototypes on time– French vendor of collimator jaw assembly has been contacted to

negotiate price/delivery for shipment to SLAC: reply immanent– CERN feels that a spare support (Bulgarian company(?)) can be

sent without much trouble

Plans for damage tests before final delivery date may need to be made

Participation in Fall 2006 Phase I testing under discussion

Page 42: The LARP Collimation Program 13 June 2006 LARP DOE Review - Fermilab Tom Markiewicz/SLAC BNL - FNAL- LBNL - SLAC US LHC Accelerator Research Program

LARP DOE Review - 13 June 2006 Collimation Tasks - T. MarkiewiczSlide n° 42 / 51

Phase II Project at CERN

CERN Phase II program is beginning– CERN 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.

Review committee concerned that– Specifications, deliverables, agreements be codified in writing

• When design complete, will enter into CERN EDMS (eg. Ratti et al)

– SLAC will always lose to CERN in a technology down-select

Hermann Schmickler promotes effort to a “LARP Hard Deliverable”

Page 43: The LARP Collimation Program 13 June 2006 LARP DOE Review - Fermilab Tom Markiewicz/SLAC BNL - FNAL- LBNL - SLAC US LHC Accelerator Research Program

LARP DOE Review - 13 June 2006 Collimation Tasks - T. MarkiewiczSlide n° 43 / 51

Phase II Task Summary

Project has slipped 6 months in 6 months due to– Reality of hard deliverables as opposed to softer “design” milestones– Staffing delays: failed job offers, safety mandates, personal issues … – Understandable design requests by review committee

• Nothing we didn’t know about

Budget “slipped” 6 months or $430k as wellAfter taking this hit we believe we are on-track to deliver on new schedule

– Nervous now about accident condition: begin to discuss beam tests– Believe various steady state requirements are attack-able on an “as

good as can be engineered” basis– Excellent recent ideas simplify design and increase performance x5

Expect thermal tests and completely tested RC1 device by end of FY06 and mid-FY07, respectively

Need to get full Phase I mechanism from CERN vendor if we are to make RC2 deliver schedule. If SLAC can concentrate on jaws and have rest of infrastructure provided RC2 can meet LHC schedule.– Slippage hopefully consistent with CERN’s newest schedule

Page 44: The LARP Collimation Program 13 June 2006 LARP DOE Review - Fermilab Tom Markiewicz/SLAC BNL - FNAL- LBNL - SLAC US LHC Accelerator Research Program

LARP DOE Review - 13 June 2006 Collimation Tasks - T. MarkiewiczSlide n° 44 / 51

Task #4: Irradiation Damage Assessment of LHC collimator materials

Scope: Irradiate 2-D weave carbon-carbon and exact graphite used in

Phase I jaws plus materials considered viable for Phase II jaws• BNL AGS/BLIP (70 A of 117 & 200 MeV protons)

Measure material properties: thermal expansion, mechanical properties, thermal conductivity/diffusivity and thermal shock• BNL “Hot Cell” Sample Measurement Facility

Resource Requirements:– BLIP Irradiation charges & hot cell measurement facility use fees– Sample acquisition and preparation– Measurement apparatus improvement– Personnel costs

Timescale:– 2005,2006 proton runs + analysis into FY2007

Page 45: The LARP Collimation Program 13 June 2006 LARP DOE Review - Fermilab Tom Markiewicz/SLAC BNL - FNAL- LBNL - SLAC US LHC Accelerator Research Program

LARP DOE Review - 13 June 2006 Collimation Tasks - T. MarkiewiczSlide n° 45 / 51

BNL Irradiation (BLIP) and Post-Irradiation Testing Facilities and Set-Up

Layout of multi-material irradiation matrix at BNL BLIP

Test Specimen Assembly

Remotely-operated tensile testing

system in Hot Cell #2

Dilatometer Set-up

In Hot Cell #1

Page 46: The LARP Collimation Program 13 June 2006 LARP DOE Review - Fermilab Tom Markiewicz/SLAC BNL - FNAL- LBNL - SLAC US LHC Accelerator Research Program

LARP DOE Review - 13 June 2006 Collimation Tasks - T. MarkiewiczSlide n° 46 / 51

Task #4 Status

Completed:• Phase I Carbon-Carbon irradiation• Sample activation measurements (mCi, dpa)• Thermal Expansion of C-C specimens• Preparation of Phase II material samples

In Progress:• Set up of existing tensile test apparatus & test of irradiated C-C• Set up of new thermal conductivity apparatus• 2006 Run if Phase II materials in BLIP begun May 4, 2006• Thermal Expansion on Phase II materials that have not been irradiated

Specimens highly degraded under dose>> LHC collimator jaws will see.

Page 47: The LARP Collimation Program 13 June 2006 LARP DOE Review - Fermilab Tom Markiewicz/SLAC BNL - FNAL- LBNL - SLAC US LHC Accelerator Research Program

LARP DOE Review - 13 June 2006 Collimation Tasks - T. MarkiewiczSlide n° 47 / 51

CTE Measurements of Irradiated C-C

Strong (fiber plane) direction

Irradiation Damage Self Anneals through thermal cycling in both strong and weak directions

7.50 mCi

Weak (┴fiber plane) direction

Page 48: The LARP Collimation Program 13 June 2006 LARP DOE Review - Fermilab Tom Markiewicz/SLAC BNL - FNAL- LBNL - SLAC US LHC Accelerator Research Program

LARP DOE Review - 13 June 2006 Collimation Tasks - T. MarkiewiczSlide n° 48 / 51

Materials for May 2006 BLIP Run are Ready

Primary Phase II Materials:

• Annealed Copper • Glidcop (0.15% Al –

balance Cu)

Other Potential Phase II Materials:

• Super Invar• Gum Metal

Other Materials to be (re)tested

• 2D Carbon-Carbon• 3D Carbon-Carbon

Page 49: The LARP Collimation Program 13 June 2006 LARP DOE Review - Fermilab Tom Markiewicz/SLAC BNL - FNAL- LBNL - SLAC US LHC Accelerator Research Program

LARP DOE Review - 13 June 2006 Collimation Tasks - T. MarkiewiczSlide n° 49 / 51

New Measurement Equipment

Thermal Conductivity Measurements

Using the Laser Flash Method

•Laser already in the Hot Lab•Experimental Safety Review is taking place at BNL•Grad Student from SUNY/SB joined the team

•Tests are planned for summer and fall FY06

Page 50: The LARP Collimation Program 13 June 2006 LARP DOE Review - Fermilab Tom Markiewicz/SLAC BNL - FNAL- LBNL - SLAC US LHC Accelerator Research Program

LARP DOE Review - 13 June 2006 Collimation Tasks - T. MarkiewiczSlide n° 50 / 51

Jaw Damage Studies(an increase in scope)

Simulations of Extreme Energy

Deposition (jaw damage case)

Using LS-DYNA

Measurements of laser induced

ablation of Cu and comparison with

LS-DYNA

Page 51: The LARP Collimation Program 13 June 2006 LARP DOE Review - Fermilab Tom Markiewicz/SLAC BNL - FNAL- LBNL - SLAC US LHC Accelerator Research Program

LARP DOE Review - 13 June 2006 Collimation Tasks - T. MarkiewiczSlide n° 51 / 51

Conclusion

The four LARP Collimation program tasks– Provide R&D results to a key LHC subsystem that will need to

perform well from the beginning• Strong support for all tasks from LHC Collimation group

– Play to the unique strengths of the US Labs• RHIC as a testbed• BNL irradiation test facilities• Fermilab’s simulation strength• SLAC’s Linear Collider collimator engineering program

Concerns– Manpower at BNL for tracking or else nothing will happen– Timeliness of FNAL simulations for input to Phase I design choices– Adequate funds for BNL irradiations studies– Aggressive schedule for a demanding “hard deliverable” prototype

Phase II metal collimator• Currently far from kind of results you have seen from Instrumentation &

Magnet groups

Page 52: The LARP Collimation Program 13 June 2006 LARP DOE Review - Fermilab Tom Markiewicz/SLAC BNL - FNAL- LBNL - SLAC US LHC Accelerator Research Program

Bonus Slides

Page 53: The LARP Collimation Program 13 June 2006 LARP DOE Review - Fermilab Tom Markiewicz/SLAC BNL - FNAL- LBNL - SLAC US LHC Accelerator Research Program

LARP DOE Review - 13 June 2006 Collimation Tasks - T. MarkiewiczSlide n° 53 / 51

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

Collimators per beam in IR7

Page 54: The LARP Collimation Program 13 June 2006 LARP DOE Review - Fermilab Tom Markiewicz/SLAC BNL - FNAL- LBNL - SLAC US LHC Accelerator Research Program

LARP DOE Review - 13 June 2006 Collimation Tasks - T. MarkiewiczSlide n° 54 / 51

LHC Beam Dump Abort System

R. Schmidt

HALO ‘03

Page 55: The LARP Collimation Program 13 June 2006 LARP DOE Review - Fermilab Tom Markiewicz/SLAC BNL - FNAL- LBNL - SLAC US LHC Accelerator Research Program

LARP DOE Review - 13 June 2006 Collimation Tasks - T. MarkiewiczSlide n° 55 / 51

# Bunches on Collimators Delay in Retriggering Dump Kicker

J.-B. Jeanneret

HALO ‘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 56: The LARP Collimation Program 13 June 2006 LARP DOE Review - Fermilab Tom Markiewicz/SLAC BNL - FNAL- LBNL - SLAC US LHC Accelerator Research Program

LARP DOE Review - 13 June 2006 Collimation Tasks - T. MarkiewiczSlide n° 56 / 51

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

Page 57: The LARP Collimation Program 13 June 2006 LARP DOE Review - Fermilab Tom Markiewicz/SLAC BNL - FNAL- LBNL - SLAC US LHC Accelerator Research Program

LARP DOE Review - 13 June 2006 Collimation Tasks - T. MarkiewiczSlide n° 57 / 51

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

Prototypes Made & TestedFull Order Placed

Page 58: The LARP Collimation Program 13 June 2006 LARP DOE Review - Fermilab Tom Markiewicz/SLAC BNL - FNAL- LBNL - SLAC US LHC Accelerator Research Program

LARP DOE Review - 13 June 2006 Collimation Tasks - T. MarkiewiczSlide n° 58 / 51

Jaw Positioning Forces – Phase I => Phase II

Pull-in force

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

0 20 40

x (mm)

F (

N) Fin

Fres

Jaw end springs will be sized as com-promise 1) bending-generated force applied to nut 2) static deflection due to jaw weight

Pull-in force

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

0 20 40

x (mm)

F (

N) Fin

Fres

Pull-in headroom expressed as force at nut

Upper jaw - shown Lower jaw

Jaw deflection = 400 um for 1 hr beam lifetime case, 1200 um for 10 sec transient @12 minute lifetime power level

Page 59: The LARP Collimation Program 13 June 2006 LARP DOE Review - Fermilab Tom Markiewicz/SLAC BNL - FNAL- LBNL - SLAC US LHC Accelerator Research Program

LARP DOE Review - 13 June 2006 Collimation Tasks - T. MarkiewiczSlide n° 59 / 51

material co

oli

ng

arc

(d

eg

)

po

we

r (k

W)

pe

r ja

w

Tm

ax

( C

) 3

Tm

ax

wa

ter

sid

e (

C)

de

fl (

um

) 4

wa

ter

To

ut

( C

) 2

po

we

r (k

W)

Tm

ax

( C

)

Tm

ax

wa

ter

sid

e (

C)

de

fl (

um

) 4

Cu solid, 136x950-,750 heated, 2 ch, fluid pipes 36 11.7 91.5 69.7 107.0 36.1 58.5 223.3 129.6 778

Cu, 136x71x950- ,750 heated, (helical), fluid pipes- 11.7 86.5 68.3 394.0 36.0 58.5 231.3 153.5 1216

Cu, 136x11x950- ,750 heated, (helical), fluid pipes- 11.7 66.1 203.0 36.4 58.5 186.0 793 all cu shallow 10mm helix

Cu, 136x11x950- ,750 heated, (helical), fluid pipes- 11.7 65.1 198.0 36.4 58.5 184.0 781 all cu shallow helix new

Cu, 136x11x950- ,750 heated, (helical), fluid pipes- 11.7 75.5 209.0 36.0 58.5 208.9 919 all cu deep 25mm helix

Cu, 136x11x950- ,750 heated, (helical), fluid pipes- 11.7 54.3 136.0 36.4 58.5 158.5 606 all cu shallow, 2cm pitch

Cu, 136x11x950- ,750 heated, (helical), fluid pipes- 11.7 85.2 402.0 36.0 58.5 231.4 1135 bimet, thk 25mm Cu

Cu, 136x11x950- ,750 heated, (helical), fluid pipes- 11.7 95.3 448.0 36.4 58.5 256.0 1111 bimet, thin 10mm Cu

Cu, 136x11x950- ,750 heated, (helical), fluid pipes- 11.7 97.7 475.0 36.3 58.5 265.2 1158 bimet, thin Cu, sst cooled

1. power per jaw is nominal - power deposited in rectangular FLUKA grid2. Tin = 20C, T rise based on power, 9 L/min flow3. simulation of jaw conduction and convection to water - no transport of heat by water4. deflections referenced to end O.D. At the gap.

CERN ray file, 7 , 83.8% 60cm TCPV, 4.8% direct hits

10 , primary debris + 5% direct hits SS @ 1 hour beam life transient 10 sec @ 12 min beam life

12/05 review baseline, thinner Cu plus solid SST core

12/05 review baseline12/05 review baseline plus solid Cu core12/05 review baseline plus solid SST core

Bimetallic jaw (SST/Cu): no benefitSolid Cu beneficial

SST/Cu

Baseline Hollow Cu

SolidCu

No benefit from SST core – same CTE as Cu, poor conductivity – temperature distribution unchanged. Cu core => alt heat path to opposite side, reduces T therefore bending.

Page 60: The LARP Collimation Program 13 June 2006 LARP DOE Review - Fermilab Tom Markiewicz/SLAC BNL - FNAL- LBNL - SLAC US LHC Accelerator Research Program

LARP DOE Review - 13 June 2006 Collimation Tasks - T. MarkiewiczSlide n° 60 / 51

Simple support, deflections referred to jaw edge (blue & green) or shaft (pink)

pow

er (k

W)

per

jaw

Tmax

( C

)

defl

(um

)

pow

er (k

W)

Tmax

( C

)

defl

(um

)

jaw

Cu, 136x71x950- , cooling 25mm deep, 5cm pitch 11.7 86.5 394 58.5 231 1216 RC1 baseline

Cu, 136x11x950- , solid, cooling 25mm deep, 5cm pitch 11.7 75.5 253 58.5 209 919 baseline + solid

Cu, 136x11x950- , solid, cooling 25mm deep, 2cm pitch 11.7 65.7 202 58.5 195 813Cu, 136x11x950- , solid, cooling 10mm deep, 2cm pitch 11.7 54.3 136 58.5 159 606 baseline + solid, shallow, 2p

Simple support, deflections referred to shaftCu, 136x71x950- , cooling 25mm deep, 5cm pitch 11.7 86.5 426 58.5 231 1260 RC1 baseline

Cu, 136x11x950- , solid, cooling 25mm deep, 5cm pitch 11.7 75.5 291 58.5 209 962 baseline + solid

Cu, 136x11x950- , solid, cooling 25mm deep, 2cm pitch 11.7 65.7 238 58.5 195 853Cu, 136x11x950- , solid, cooling 10mm deep, 2cm pitch 11.7 54.3 171 58.5 159 646 baseline + solid, shallow, 2p

Cu, solid shaft, 25mm, 2cm pitch 11.7 66.3 98 58.5 197 232 shaft

Cu, solid shaft, 10mm, 2cm pitch 11.7 54.7 78 58.5 160 280Cu, super invar shaft, 25mm, 2cm pitch 11.7 67.4 90 58.5 199 266 super invar shaft

Cu, tungsten shaft, 25mm, 2cm pitch 11.7 66.8 88 58.5 198 270 tungsten shaft

Cu, sst shaft, 25mm, 2cm pitch 11.7 67.3 132 58.5 199 368 sst shaft

Cu, Be shaft, 25mm, 2cm pitch 11.7 66.7 112 58.5 198 368 Be shaft

SS @ 1 hour beam life transient 10 sec @ 12 min beam life

Alternative Shaft MaterialsShaft supported case - No Major Improvement

Deflection is combo of bending & swelling

Page 61: The LARP Collimation Program 13 June 2006 LARP DOE Review - Fermilab Tom Markiewicz/SLAC BNL - FNAL- LBNL - SLAC US LHC Accelerator Research Program

LARP DOE Review - 13 June 2006 Collimation Tasks - T. MarkiewiczSlide n° 61 / 51

Spring-supported ends, center stop at 45 degrees, deflections referred to stop

pow

er

(kW

) pe

r ja

w

Tmax

( C

)

defl

(um

)

pow

er

(kW

)

Tmax

( C

)

defl

(um

)

jaw

Cu, 136x71x950- , cooling 25mm deep, 5cm pitch 11.7 86.5 36 58.5 231 97 RC1 baseline

Cu, 136x11x950- , solid, cooling 25mm deep, 5cm pitch 11.7 75.5 26 58.5 209 83 baseline + solid

Cu, 136x11x950- , solid, cooling 25mm deep, 2cm pitch 11.7 65.7 24 58.5 195 76Cu, 136x11x950- , solid, cooling 10mm deep, 2cm pitch 11.7 54.3 22 58.5 159 64 baseline + solid, shallow, 2p

Cu, solid shaft, 25mm, 2cm pitch 11.7 66.3 48 58.5 197 179 shaft

Cu, solid shaft, 10mm, 2cm pitch 11.7 54.7 34 58.5 160 135Cu, super invar shaft, 25mm, 2cm pitch 11.7 67.4 48 58.5 199 192 super invar shaft

Cu, tungsten shaft, 25mm, 2cm pitch 11.7 66.8 47 58.5 198 184 tungsten shaft

Cu, sst shaft, 25mm, 2cm pitch 11.7 67.3 50 58.5 199 180 sst shaft

Cu, Be shaft, 25mm, 2cm pitch 11.7 66.7 46 58.5 198 179 Be shaft

Alternative Shaft MaterialsCentral stop-supported case - No Improvement

Page 62: The LARP Collimation Program 13 June 2006 LARP DOE Review - Fermilab Tom Markiewicz/SLAC BNL - FNAL- LBNL - SLAC US LHC Accelerator Research Program

LARP DOE Review - 13 June 2006 Collimation Tasks - T. MarkiewiczSlide n° 62 / 51

Crystal Collimation Proposal

• Stages: – Stage 1: feasibility study itself– Stage 2: design of the LHC Phase II Collimation system

• Goal: deliver a report (of a mini-review?) by next LARP collaboration meeting (~ April 2007), be in position to decide whether to proceed to Stage 2

• Plan: – Prepare and perform bent crystal

experiments at Tevatron in Fall 2006 – Prepare and perform crystal characterization

experiment at SPS H8 line in Sep’06– Data processing and analysis – Theory work and code development for the LHC