Beam Delivery System / Machine Detector Interface

1. Beam Delivery System / Machine Detector Interface BDS Area leaders Deepa Angal-Kalinin, Andrei Seryi, Hitoshi Yamamoto ILC MAC meeting, January 10-12, 2007 Global Design Effort

2. BDS design optimization and evolutionVancouver => MAC(Sep06) => Valencia => MAC(Jan07) • Configuration changes (CCRs) after Vancouver • Baseline configuration to 14/14, single collider hall • 5m muon walls instead of 9+18m – CCR approved 23rd Sep • On surface detector assembly – CCR approved 2nd Nov • Evaluations by WWS, MDI panels & CCB • MAC (Sep 06) • Further cost optimizations studies • Shorter BDS and shorter extraction lines • Several optics versions proposed, extraction lines shortened • Single IR – evaluation of push-pull • Task force charged to report at Valencia • CCR submitted 19th Nov, on 23rd Dec CCB issued recommendation for the EC to approve the CCR. The EC approved it last Thursday Global Design Effort

3. Vancouver baseline to Valencia baseline Vancouver baseline Diagnostics BSY tune-up dump 2mr IR b-collim. E-collim. 20mr IR Two collider halls separated longitudinally by 138m FF Valencia baseline 14mr IR 14mr IR One collider hall Global Design Effort

4. Valencia 14/14 baseline. Conceptual CFS layout muon wall tunnel widening polarimeter laser borehole 9m shaft for BDS access IP2 10m IP1 beam dump service hall alcoves 1km Global Design Effort

5. CFS designs for two IRs Vancouver Valencia Global Design Effort

6. Beam Delivery System tunnels 9m shaft for BDS access & service hall muon wall tunnel widening alcoves beam dump service hall beam dump and its shield Global Design Effort

7. Muon walls • Purpose: • Personnel Protection: Limit dose rates in one IR when beam sent to other IR or to the tune-up beam dump • Physics: Reduce the muon background in the detectors Scheme of a muon wall installed in a tunnel widening which provides passage around the wall Baseline configuration: 18m and 9m walls in each beamline Global Design Effort

8. 5m muon walls instead of 9+18m • Reduction of 18m muon spoilers to 5m and elimination of 9m muon spoilers – CCR submitted 8th September • Considered that • The estimation of 0.1% beam halo population is conservative and such high amount is not supported by any simulations • The minimum muon wall required for personnel protection is 5m • Detector can tolerate higher muon flux • Cost of long muon spoilers is substantial, dominated by material cost and thus approximately proportional to the muon wall length • The caverns will be built for full length walls, allowing upgrade if higher muons flux would be measured • MDI panel accepted this change • CCB approved this request on 23rd September; contingent upon continuation of detailed detector studies to ensure that the occupancy due to muons does not affect the high precision physics measurements Global Design Effort

9. On-surface assembly : CMS approach • CMS assembly approach • Assembled on the surface in parallel with underground work • Allows pre-commissioning before lowering • Lowering using dedicated heavy lifting equipment • Potential for big time saving • Reduces size of required underground hall Global Design Effort

10. On-surface detector assembly CCR • According to tentative CF&S schedule worked out by M. Gastal, CERN, the detector hall is ready for detector assembly after 4y11m after project start • If so, cannot fit into the goal of “7years until first beam” and “8years until physics run” • Surface assembly allows to save 2-2.5 years and allows to fit into this goal • The collider hall size may be smaller (~40-50%) in this case • A building on surface is needed, but savings may be still substantial • Discussing possible variations : • pure CMS assembly (config B) • modified CMS assembly (config A) • Assemble smaller (than CMS) pieces on surface, lower down and perform final assembly underground • May affect schedule (?), but preliminary looks by a small bit less expensive than “B” • The change request not intended to specify all the details for the schedule, hall sizes, capacity of cranes etc. • Such optimisation is being done in details by BDS, CF&S and Detector concept groups. • CCB approved this CCR on 2nd November. Global Design Effort

11. CERN LHC-ILC engineering forum Participation by MDI members (Oct. 12,13) • Tour of ATLAS, CMS and ALICE • Presentations on: • Radiation protection issues • CMS services • ATLAS installation • CMS installation + infrastructure • ILC MDI :present status and understanding – H. Yamamoto and A. Seryi • Assembly and installation of an ILC detector – N. Meyners • Extremely useful information from CERN colleagues based on real experience. Global Design Effort

12. Optimizing the design and tweaking it to understand its position w.r.to the optimum • Since Vancouver, incorporated other cost saving changes • redesigned tail folding octupoles, final doublet, refined vacuum requirements, redesigned CFS tunnels, changed design of water and air cooling systems, decimated bends, removed any spares and overheads, scrutinized all tech area for cost savings, etc. • Other design optimization studies that were performed, but were not included, as not giving performance improvement and/or cost savings • studied shorter BDS or its subsystems • studied lowering power of tune-up dumps • studied replacing magnetized “muon walls” with magnetized muon doughnuts Global Design Effort

13. Single IR questions • GDE suggested evaluation of push-pull at the end of September. • Questions to be evaluated • Organizational and historical questions • Accelerator design questions • Detector design questions • Engineering integration questions • Detailed list of questions to be studied developed: • Technical evaluation of push-pull option by an extended task force, which include more than 60 detector and accelerator experts from ILC community and beyond. Detailed summary presented at Valencia. • Conclusions from task force: should be feasible, provided careful design and sufficient R&D resources • Conclusions from detector concept groups: do not see show stoppers, detailed engineering design studies are needed to give confidence, in meantime would like to see two IR option kept as an alternative • WWS comments : H. Yamamoto (next talk) http://www-project.slac.stanford.edu/ilc/acceldev/beamdelivery/rdr/docs/push-pull/ Global Design Effort

14. Single IR BDS (version 2006e) e- e+ • Upgrade to 1 TeV CM involves adding magnets only … no geometry changes • Total BDS Z-length is 4452 m (2 IRs:5100m) • Removed dedicated energy error dianostics (MPS) and replaced with polarimeter chicane (some issues) hybrid “BSY” (x 2) 14 mrad ILC FF9 hybrid (x 2) IR 14 mrad ΔZ ~ -650 m w.r.t. ILC2006c 2226 m 14 mrad (L* = 5.5 m) dump lines M. Woodley et al Global Design Effort

15. BDS with single IR BSY Sacrificial collimators b-collim. E-collimator Diagnostics FF 14mr IR Tune-up dump Extraction Global Design Effort

16. betatron collimation septa MPS coll skew correction / emittance diagnostic polarimeter fast kickers fast sweepers tuneup dump beta match final transformer polarimeter energy collimation IP primary dump energy spectrometer fast sweepers energy spectrometer final doublet Global Design Effort

17. 500GeV => 1TeV CM upgrade in BSY of 2006e “Type B” (×4) fast kickers septa polarimeter chicane QFSM1 moves ~0.5 m Magnets and kickers are added in energy upgrade M. Woodley et al Global Design Effort

18. Single IR BDS optics (2006e) BSY FF Polarimeter E-spectrometer E-collimator b-collim. Diagnostics Global Design Effort

19. Concept of single IR Final Doublet vacuum connection & feedback kicker common stationary cryostat Detector QD0 QF1 warm IP Original FD and redesigned for push-pull (BNL) Redesigned FD Global Design Effort

20. IR magnets BNL prototype of sextupole-octupole magnet BNL prototype of self shielded quad cancellation of the external field with a shield coil has been successfully demonstrated at BNL Global Design Effort

21. New optics for extraction FD : push pull compatible • Rearranged extraction quads are shown. Optics performance is very similar. • Both the incoming FD and extraction quads are optimized for 500GeV CM. • In 1TeV upgrade would replace (as was always planned) the entire FD with in- and outgoing magnets. In this upgrade, the location of break-point may slightly move out. (The considered hall width is sufficient to accommodate this). Nominal scheme Push-pull scheme B.Parker, Y.Nosochkov et al. http://ilcagenda.cern.ch/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=1187 Global Design Effort

22. Extraction Lines : shortened by 100m For undisrupted beam reliance on beam sweeping on beam dump window using kickers. high L parameters (500 GeV CM) Total loss before and at collimators for High L parameters is within acceptable levels. Losses for the nominal case are negligible. Global Design Effort

23. Concept of single IR with two detectors detector B The concept is evolving and details being worked out may be accessible during run detector A accessible during run Platform for electronic and services (~10*8*8m). Shielded (~0.5m of concrete) from five sides. Moves with detector. Also provide vibration isolation. Global Design Effort

24. Detector systems connections detector service platform or mounted on detector detector low V DC for electronics high V AC 4K LHe for solenoids low V PS high I PS electronic racks 4K cryo-system 2K cryo-system gas system 2K LHe for FD high P room T He supply & return sub-detectors solenoid antisolenoid FD high I DC for solenoids chilled water for electronics high I DC for FD gas for TPC fiber data I/O electronics I/O fixed connections long flexible connections move together Global Design Effort

25. Push-pull cryo configuration Optimized for fast switch of detectors in push-pull and fast opening on beamline QD0 part QF1 part This scheme require lengthening L* to 4.5m and increase of the inner FD drift Opening of detectors on the beamline (for quick fixes) may need to be limited to a smaller opening than what could be done in off-beamline position door central part Global Design Effort

26. Shielding the IR hall 250mSv/h Self-shielding of GLD Shielding the “4th“ with walls Global Design Effort

27. Working progress on IR design… Mobile Shield Wall Illustration of ongoing work… Designs are tentative & evolving Structural Rib 3m Thickness Overlapping Rib Mobile Platform 20m x 30m Electronics/Cryo Shack 1m Shielded 25m Height 9m Base John Amann Global Design Effort

28. CFS layout for single IR & central DR Global Design Effort

29. CFS layout for single IR Global Design Effort

30. Single IR – push pull schedule • The hardware can be designed to be compatible with a ~one day move, and this can be a design goal • Need to study cost and reliability versus the move duration • Need to study regulations in each regions • A.Yamamoto presented a scheme (which includes warming-up the cold-box and disconnecting room T lines) and give an estimation of one week (many other tasks can be done in parallel with cryo work), which can serve as conservative boundary of the range • Recalibration (at Z) may or may not be needed, and may be independent on push-pull – to be studied • BDS group will study the range between one day and one week and optimize the design versus cost, performance, reliability, etc. Global Design Effort

31. Single IR, push-pull : cost • Cost difference of two IR versus single IR push-pull as reported to CCB on Dec.15 (based on Valencia wbs): • baseline 14/14: 100% • estimate for single p-p IR: 69.1%, with further updates 67.6% • Estimation of saving, in Value cost, is 31-32% of BDS cost • Using single push-pull IR saves about one third of two IR BDS cost, or in other words the two IR BDS is by about 50% more expensive than single push-pull IR BDS • Estimation of additional hardware that is needed to make push-pull feasible is small fraction of the savings Global Design Effort

32. From summary of CCB response on Single IR push-pull • “CCB agrees that .. CCR … qualifies as Class-2. Consequently, CCB assumes that its role … is to make recommendation to EC … rather than to make a decision. • CCB recommends EC … to accept CCR#23, whereby incorporating the "1IR with two detectors push-pull" as Baseline Configuration. • CCB recommends EC to maintain the previous Baseline with "2IR, single hall, two detectors" as part of Alternative Configuration. • CCB recommends EC to reinforce a taskforce on Machine-Detector-Interface issues. The taskforce should be specifically charged … to facilitate pertinent design development efforts and discussions on relevant executive matters.” Global Design Effort

33. Briefly on other systems • Magnets and PS • Vacuum system • Crab cavities • Beam dumps & collimators • IR hall, surface buildings & cranes Global Design Effort

34. Magnets and PS • Most of the magnets are rather standard, but require good magnetic and mechanical stability • All PS are high availability design, stability in several ppm range (building ~40 PS for ATF2 now) • PS are placed in the service tunnel, cable penetrations are every 100m, which reduces heat load in the tunnel helping thermal and mechanical stability • All BDS magnets in incoming beamlines except bends are on movers with 50nm step • Special magnets except FD and first extraction quads: • SC tail folding octupoles (BNL design) • beam sweepers • Kickers with option of DC bends • Antisolenoids embedded in the detector • Detector integrated dipoles (part of detector solenoid) • Magnetized muon walls Global Design Effort

35. Vacuum system • Material choice • is defined by the resistive wall effects for off-centered bunch: preserving the beam emittance discourage use of SS chambers • Considered Al version and Cu plated SS chambers. Chosen the latter as more reliable, keeping Al for backup option. Chambers in the places where SR is expected (e.g. chicanes) are Cu • Vacuum pressure • determined by the need to minimize background due to beam-gas. • Need 1nTorr in ~200m upstream of IP (may need in situ baking), ~10nTorr in 200-800m and ~50nTorr in the rest of the system Global Design Effort

36. Crab cavities • BDS has two SC 9-cell cavities located ~13 m upstream of the IP operated at 5MV/m peak deflection. • Based on a Fermilab design for a 3.9GHz TM110 mode 13-cell cavity. • The uncorrelated phase jitter between the positron and electron crab cavities must be controlled to 61 fsec to maintain optimized collisions. • A proof-of-principle test of a 7 cell 1.5GHz cavity at the JLab ERL facility has achieved a 37 fsec level of control. • Other key issues to be addressed are LLRF control and higher-order mode damping. • Top: earlier prototype of 3.9GHz deflecting (crab) cavity designed and build by Fermilab. This cavity did not have all the needed high and low order mode couplers. • Bottom: Cavity modeled in Omega3P, to optimize design of the LOM, HOM and input couplers.FNAL T. Khabibouline et al., SLAC K.Ko et al. • Design is being continued by UK-US team 3.9GHz cavity achieved 7.5 MV/m Global Design Effort

37. 18MW Water Dump design features BDS features • Optics & drift to increase undisrupted beam spot size on window • Raster beam in 30mm radius circle in 1 ms; interlock to MPS • Hi-power donut collimators to protect vessel window Vessel • 6.5m (18X0) water followed by 1m water-cooled Cu (22X0) • 1.5m diameter with vortex flow water, v=1.0-1.5 m/s , at r=30cm • 10 atm to prevent boiling • 30 cm diameter 1mm Ti vessel window with water cooling nozzles Rad water system • 2300 gpm three loop water system • 18 MW heat exchanger & ~400HP of pumps per loop • Catalytic H2-O2 recombiner • Mixed bed ion exchange column to filter 7Be • Containment for tritiated water Shielding • 50cm Fe + 150cm concrete ‘local’ protection for personnel & beamlines • 200cm site dependent to protect ground water Global Design Effort

38. 18MW Dump design • Two companies: Fichtner & Framatome, design and cost estimate for TESLA TDR • Fichtner design for TESLA reworked by RAL • Taken into account recent RAL experience with industry • RAL design included additions for window remote handling, air exchange and control, air drying and recovery, etc. Global Design Effort

39. IR surface area Global Design Effort

40. Included in IR hall and surface buildings: • IR halls: • finished civil engineering works, plus • movable concrete intermediate shielding wall in two parts (on air pads) • steel platforms with staircases and all fittings • two 1.6t elevators between steel platforms plus two 2.8t in shafts, • steel plates on the floor of the Hall • one 400t and two 20t overhead cranes in Hall • etc… • Included in surface assembly building: • 400t and 20t overhead cranes • Requirements for detector assembly are different (table on the next slide). Since we cannot tell now which detectors will be used, assumed Configuration A • This choice can suite some detectors better than other (one size does not fit all) and is the reason for concerns • Further adjustments of IR hall and surface building are needed, and detector colleagues should be more deeply involved in this design and also cost optimization Global Design Effort

41. Table of IR assumptions continued … Global Design Effort

42. Summary • Several configuration changes since Vancouver to Valencia and final RDR version. • Single IR with two complementary detectors in push-pull configuration has been recommended by CCB to EC as a baseline for the RDR. The EC approved it last Thursday • This configuration gives 30% saving compared to two IR 14/14 mrad configuration. • Single IR BDS optics design allows upgrade to 1 TeV in the same tunnel. • The on surface detector assembly will save 2-2.5 years and has been accepted by the MDI panel. • The engineering details will be carried out in the EDR phase. Global Design Effort

43. Backup slides Global Design Effort

44. 500 GeV cm 1 TeV cm Global Design Effort

45. … continued … Global Design Effort

46. Power & cooling in BDS Table as of Valencia, 1TeV CM, two IR. Table is as of 11/26/2006 9.768 + 0.862 + 2*18 MW => Power from Magnets, PS & Dumps to LCW 0.726 MW => Cables to Air=> approximately 60W/m in average 0.712 MW => PS to Air => taken out by Chilled water Global Design Effort

47. Cost breakdown for single IR (Labor person-hours, such as installation, was converted to dollars to produce this chart) Global Design Effort

48. Beam Dump Vessel Global Design Effort

49. Beam Dump Service Cavern Layout Global Design Effort

50. If detector does not provide any radiation protection: 18MW loss on Cu target 9r.l \at s=-8m. No Pacman, no detector. Concrete wall at 10m. Dose rate in mrem/hr. • For 36MW maximum credible incident, the concrete wall at 10m from beamline should be ~3.1m Wall 25 rem/hr 10m Alberto Fasso et al Global Design Effort