Post on 10-Feb-2016
description
LHC Ring Collimation– Overview –
R. Assmann, AB/ABPfor 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 flowStart of project
Definition of phased approachCollimator specifications for phase 1
System layout(optics, energydeposition, …)
Radiation,collimatorshielding
Collimatormechanical
design
Motors, controlelectronics Budget
Prototyping, verification with SPS test
Series production
Phase 2 R&Ddesign, production
OCT02
JUL03
MAY-OCT04
2005-2006
Installation, commissioning2006-2007
Logic behind the phased approachNo 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
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)!
ID Task Name1 Project set-up2 Conceptual design3 Phase 14 Phase 25 Phase 36 Phase 4 (optional)
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 Q12002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
(without commissioning of the system – included in project mandate)
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).
Phasing of ring collimators (including spares)
Phase 1, 79
Phase 4, 16
Phase 3, 5
Phase 2, 33
(11 spares)(3 spares)
(1 spare)
(no spares)
Completing Phase 1 collimation by 2007Highest priority: Compatibility with LHC schedule without compromising
the system performance (…too much)(remember: in phase 1 we require 50× advancement incleaning efficiency beyond requirements elsewhere)
Strategy: Rely on solutions that worked before with similarmechanical specifications (resisting the temptationto 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)
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!
Collimators for Phase 1 (including spares)
TCP, 11
TCS, 33TCT, 18
TCLI, 5
TCLP, 5
TCSP, 7
(3 spares)
(3 spares)
(2 spares)
(1 spare)
(1 spare)
(1 spare)
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!
Collimation project for Phase 1
• Budget and risks
• Manpower
• Schedule
Budget LHC Collimation – Phase 1 –
Number of components Cost/component Total costmachine spares [kSFr] [kSFr]
TCP 8 3 103 1133TCS 30 3 133 4389TCT 16 2 133 2394TCLI 4 1 133 665TCLP 4 1 133 665TCSP 6 1 63 441General costs 2247Installation/alignm./transp./… 68 5 340
Total 68 11 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).
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8FTE
Manpower Collimation Project
2003
2004
2003 1.6 4.8 0.52004 4.5 8 0.5
HW sim/design/exp proj. management
Manpower: 6.9 FTE (2003) 13.0 FTE (2004)
AB-division: 3.3 FTE (2003) 6.9 FTE (2004)
1.0 from PhDstudent
w/oions
Manpower per group
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
20032004
2003 1.6 1.5 0.2 0 0.3 0.8 1 1 0.72004 3.4 1.8 1.2 0.5 0.3 2.4 2 0.7 0.7
AB/ABP AB/ATB AB/CO AB/RF AT/MT EST IHEP TIS/RP TRIUMF
Total: 27 persons involved from 9 groups in 2004
Average FTE/person: 0.3 (2003) 0.5 (2004)
FTE
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 Task Name
1 Project set-up
2 Conceptual design
3 Optics & cleaning design IR7
4 Feedback from AT/VAC, EST/IC
5 Energy deposition IR7: Absorbers
6 ECR IR7
7 Optics & cleaning design IR3
8 Energy deposition 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 TCS
17 Drawings TCS jaws
18 Ordering TCS jaw material
19 Motorization/local control
20 Integration into LHC controls
21 Heating/cooling test
22 Prototypes construction
23 Test: Mechanical tolerances
24 Test: Outbaking/Vacuum
25 Test: Mechanical tolerances
26 Test: Impedance
27 Integrate with motorization
28 Integrate local controls
29 Remote control tests
30 Proposal SPS/TT40 test
31 Pre-installation SPS
32 Pre-installation TT40
33 Test installation
34 SPS/TT40 beam tests
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep OctQtr 4, 2002 Qtr 1, 2003 Qtr 2, 2003 Qtr 3, 2003 Qtr 4, 2003 Qtr 1, 2004 Qtr 2, 2004 Qtr 3, 2004 Qtr 4, 2004
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
Much larger movements
for collimators!
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
Space in IR7 "RBEND" "MBW.A6L7.B1" 376.7491258
2TCS + 1TCS = 12m 24.7m "QUADRUPOLE" "MQWA.E5L7.B1" 405.1216258
"QUADRUPOLE" "MQWA.A5L7.B1" 423.6216258
2TCS + 5TCS = 28m 35.9m "QUADRUPOLE" "MQWA.E4L7.B1" 463.2116258
"QUADRUPOLE" "MQWA.D4L7.B1" 466.9
1TCS = 4m 5.0m "QUADRUPOLE" "MQWA.C4L7.B1" 475.6
"QUADRUPOLE" "MQWA.A4L7.B1" 486.7116258
5TCS + 5TCS = 40m 117.3m "QUADRUPOLE" "MQWA.A4R7.B1" 607.6636258
"QUADRUPOLE" "MQWA.C4R7.B1" 618.8
1TCS = 4m 5.0m "QUADRUPOLE" "MQWA.D4R7.B1" 627.5
"QUADRUPOLE" "MQWA.E4R7.B1" 631.1636258
5TCS + 2TCS = 28m 35.9m "QUADRUPOLE" "MQWA.A5R7.B1" 670.7536258
"QUADRUPOLE" "MQWA.E5R7.B1" 689.2536258
1TCS + 2TCS = 12m 24.6m "RBEND" "MBW.A6R7.B1" 717.6261258
All space included!
40% of space in IR7 reserved for collimation
Sufficient space for correctors, BPM’s, …
Lowest free space between quads: 7.9 m
Lowest free space with collimator in between modules: 1.0m
Dogleg L
Q5 L
Q4 L
Q4 L
Q4R
Q4R
Q5
Dogleg R
Cleaning design IR7
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!
Target inefficiency
Radiation & collimator shieldingThe LHC management has confirmed its policy to limit environmental impact of LHC operation to less than the low 10Sv/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 Low environmental impact
Less shielding 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 tank with motors(~100kg)
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
R. Perret, EST
Collimator integration with shielding:
R. Perret, EST
Example of 20cm shielding(illustrative only, no design)
Collimator design for SPS prototypes continues w/oshielding.
Start thinking aboutLHC design now:
• Motors (inside/ouside)• Moving mechanism• Handling tools (crane)
Decide aboutshielding detailsmiddle of next year!(start study Feb04)
Impact on collimator design and insertion layout!(integration)
Next AB project review!?
Prototyping & TestsPrototyping 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 Task Name
1 Project set-up
2 Conceptual design
3 Optics & cleaning design IR7
4 Feedback from AT/VAC, EST/IC
5 Energy deposition IR7: Absorbers
6 ECR IR7
7 Optics & cleaning design IR3
8 Energy deposition 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 TCS
17 Drawings TCS jaws
18 Ordering TCS jaw material
19 Motorization/local control
20 Integration into LHC controls
21 Heating/cooling test
22 Prototypes construction
23 Test: Mechanical tolerances
24 Test: Outbaking/Vacuum
25 Test: Mechanical tolerances
26 Test: Impedance
27 Integrate with motorization
28 Integrate local controls
29 Remote control tests
30 Proposal SPS/TT40 test
31 Pre-installation SPS
32 Pre-installation TT40
33 Test installation
34 SPS/TT40 beam tests
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep OctQtr 4, 2002 Qtr 1, 2003 Qtr 2, 2003 Qtr 3, 2003 Qtr 4, 2003 Qtr 1, 2004 Qtr 2, 2004 Qtr 3, 2004 Qtr 4, 2004
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 2004More 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 production7) 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…
Collimation projectLeader: R. Assmann
Project engineer: O. AberleOrganization, schedule, budget, milestones, progress monitoring,
design decisions
Project steeringE. Chiaveri report to
AB division(S. Myers, LTC)
LHC project(L. Evans)
Beam aspects R. Assmann, LCWG
System design, optics, efficiency, impedance (calculation, measure-ment), beam impact, tolerances, diffusion,
beam loss, beam tests, beam commissioning, functional specification
(8/03), operational scenarios, support of
operation
Energy deposition, radiation
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.
Collimator engineering & HW
support O. Aberle
Sen. advice: P. SieversConceptual collimator de-
sign, ANSYS studies, hardware commissioning, support for beam tests,
series production, installation,
maintenance/repair, electronics&local control, phase 2 collimator R&D
Mechanical eng-ineering (EST)Coord.: M. Mayer
Engin.: A. BertarelliSen. designer: R. PerretTechnical specification,
space budget and mecha-nical integration, thermo-mechanical calculations
and tests, collimator mechanical design, prototype testing,
prototype production, drawings for series
production.
Resources/planningR. Assmann, E. Chiaveri,
M. Mayer, J.P. Riunaud
Machine ProtectionR. Schmidt
VacuumM. Jimenez
Beam instrum.B. Dehning
Dump/kickersB. Goddard
Integration into operationM. Lamont
Supply & orderingO. Aberle, A. Bertarelli
Local feedbackJ. Wenninger
ControlsAB/CO
Electronics/radiationT. Wijnands rearranged Aug03
Budget for a TCSItem Quantity Cost/item Total cost
[kSFr] [kSFr]Jaw material (65x45x1200 mm3) 2 5 10
Coating 2 0.6 1.2
Motor (micron stepping motors) 6 1.5 9
Controls + Power supplies 1 13 13
Cables 8 8
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 costsItem Cost
[kSFr]
EST design work 6300 h 321
Prototyping 8 components, 5 into LHC 400
General design studies + tests 250
Vacuum heat treatment 1-2 batches 4
Assembly, testing, bake-out (1 month x 2 people / object) 13.2 FTE (a 50kSFr) 660
Cabling, handling equipment and services in preparation for phases 2 and 3 34 times 18kSFr 612
Total 2247
Manpower 2003 2004
1 AB/ABP R. Assmann 1.0 1.0 sim/design/management2 J.B. Jeanneret 0.3 0.3 sim/design3 E. Metral/L. Vos 0.2 0.1 sim 4 S. Redaelli 0.0 1.0 sim/exp5 D. Schulte 0.1 0.2 sim 6 G. Robert-Demolaize 0.0 0.8 sim/exp
7 AB/ATB O. Aberle 0.8 0.6 HW8 E. Chiaveri 0.1 0.2 management9 F. Dercorvet 0.0 0.5 HW
10 A. Ferrari 0.3 0.3 sim 11 V. Vlachoudis 0.3 0.3 sim
12 AB/CO V. Kain 0.2 0.2 sim/exp13 M. Jonker 0.0 0.2 HW14 F. Carollo 0.0 0.6 HW15 F. Locci 0.0 0.2 HW
16 AB/RF M. Magistris 0.0 0.5 sim
17 AT/MT P. Sievers 0.3 0.3 design
18 EST M. Mayer 0.2 0.5 HW19 A. Bertarelli 0.2 0.5 HW20 R. Perret 0.3 0.9 HW21 L. Favre 0.1 0.5 HW
22 IHEP I. Baishev et al 0.2 0.7 sim23 I. Kouroutchkine 0.4 0.724 Igor 0.2 0.6
25 TIS/RP M. Brugger 0.8 0.5 design/sim26 S. Roesler 0.2 0.2 design/sim
27 TRIUMF D. Kaltchev 0.7 0.7 sim
Sum FTE 6.9 13.1Average FTE/person 0.3 0.5
Details manpower:
excluding ions
Dose rate for a carbon collimator - One day of coolingAll results are shown in mSv/h.
Collimator Pipe Shield
Tunnel without shield Tunnel with shieldM. Brugger, S. Roesler
1h40m intervention to change a carbon collimator (1 day cooling):1h40m intervention to change a carbon collimator (1 day cooling):
Primary collimator0.7 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!We do not want shielding at the collimators, if at all possible!