1 / 48

The LHeC and Future ep Collisions at CERN

J. Osborne. The LHeC and Future ep Collisions at CERN. Frank Zimmermann LHeC Workshop , Chavannes-de- Bogis 20 January 2014. Work supported by the European Commission under Capacities 7th Framework Programme, Grant Agreement 312453. Many contributors to accelerator study:

aolani
Download Presentation

The LHeC and Future ep Collisions at CERN

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. J. Osborne The LHeC and Future ep Collisions at CERN Frank Zimmermann LHeC Workshop , Chavannes-de-Bogis 20 January 2014 Work supported by the European Commission under Capacities 7th Framework Programme, Grant Agreement 312453

  2. Many contributors to accelerator study: Jose Abelleira, Chris Adolphsen, Husnu Aksakal, Rob Appleby, Mei Bai, Desmond Barber, Nathan Bernard, Sergio Bertolucci, Alex Bogacz, Frederick Bordry, Luca Bottura, Chiara Bracco, Hans Braun, Stephen Brooks, Oliver Brüning, Eugene Bulyak, Helmut Burkhardt, Rama Calaga, SwapanChattopadhyay, Ed Ciapala, Kenan Ciftci, Reina Ciftci, John Dainton, Anders Eide,EmreEroglu, Miriam Fitterer, Hector Garcia, Brennan Goddard, Yue Hao, Friedrich Haug, Bernhard Holzer, Erk Jensen, Miguel Jimenez, John Jowett, Dmitry Kayran, Max Klein, Peter Kostka, Vladimir Litvinenko, Karl Hubert Mess, Attilio Milanese, Steve Myers, ZaferNergiz, Ed Nissen, John Osborne, Dario Pellegrini, Tatiana Pieloni, Abrahan Pinedo, Alessandro Polini, Vadim Ptitsin, Louis Rinolfi, Lucio Rossi, Giovanni Rumolo, Stephan Russenschuck, Jake Skrabacz, Daniel Schulte, Ilkyoung Shin, Peter Sievers, Mike Sullivan, Saleh Sutansoy, HuguesThiesen, Luke Thompson, Rogelio Tomas, Davide Tommasini, Dejan Trbojevic, Joachim Tückmantel, Alessandra Valloni, Alessandro Variola, Ferdinand Willeke, Vitaly Yakimenko, Fabian Zomer, … ++ LHeC CDR published in 2012 (~600 pages)

  3. Large Hadron electron Collider RR LHeC: new ring in LHC tunnel, with bypasses around experiments LR LHeC: recirculating linac with energy recovery baseline configuration

  4. CDR performance targets • e- energy ≥60 GeV (2x HERA) • luminosity ~1033cm-2s-1 (25x HERA) • total electrical power for e-: ≤100 MW • operation simultaneous with LHC pp physics • e+p collisions (with similar luminosity?) • e-/e+ polarization • detector acceptance down to 1o

  5. LHeCLinac-Ring ERL layout two 10-GeV SC linacs, 3-pass up, 3-pass down; 6.4 mA, 60 GeV e-’s collide w. LHC protons/ions A. Bogacz, O. Brüning, M. Klein, D. Schulte, F. Zimmermann, et al (C=1/3 LHC allows for ion clearing gaps)

  6. ion gaps & circumference gap turn 1 gap turn 2 gap turn 3 FHC IP#2 gap turn 1 gap turn 2 gap turn 3 IP#1 DC=kCLHeC LHC CLHeC=CLHC/n future: CLHeC+=CFHC/m m, n (=3), k: integer

  7. LHeC baseline: underground layout / integration with LHC; • example: Point 2 TI2 Alice LHC Prevessin site J.Osborne / A.Kosmicki CERN/GS

  8. ERL Linac Optics

  9. ERL Arc Optics flexible momentum compaction cell; tuned for small beam size (low energy) or low De (high energy) A. Bogacz to be studied: alternative based on FFAG-type arcs à la eRHIC

  10. LHeCIR layout & SC IR quadrupoles R. Tomas Exit hole for electrons & non-colliding protons Synchrotron radiation S. Russenschuck Q2 Electron beam Q2 Q1 Q1 colliding proton beam Non-colliding proton beam Inner triplets Inner triplets High-gradient SC IR quadrupoles based on Nb3Sn for colliding proton beam with common low-field exit hole for electron beam and non-colliding proton beam detector integrated dipole: 0.3 T over +/- 9 m new design with larger l*

  11. colliding unequal beams • ring-ring • ee>>ep, be*<<bp* ring-linac ee≈ep,be*≈bp* much smaller e-emittance smaller beta function and beam sizes possible; head-on collision required; significant disruption minimume- beta function and beam sizes limited by hourglass effect; small crossing angle acceptable; little disruption hourglass reduction factor ;

  12. path to 1033 cm-2s-1 luminosity of LR collider: HD~1.3 D. Schulte LHeC2010 (round beams) highest proton beam brightness available (may depend on bunch spacing) Nb=1.7x1011 eN=3.75 mm average e- current limited by energy recovery efficiency Ie=6.4 mA • maximize geometric • overlap factor • head-on collision • small e- emittance • qc=0 • Hhg≥0.9 • decreased • proton b* function: • reduced l* (23 m → 10 m) • squeeze only one p beam • new magnet technology Nb3Sn • b*p=0.1 m

  13. LHeC baseline parameters

  14. LHeC baseline parameters – cont’d

  15. ERL Beam Dynamics BBU: beam stability requires damping (Q~105) detuning helps further (Df/frms~0, or 0.1%) , 802 MHz D. Pellegrini, D. Schulte

  16. e+ source requirements X 18 X 6666 X 65 L. Rinolfi

  17. possible e+ source options • recycle e+ together with energy, multiple use, damping ring in SPS tunnel w t~2 ms • Compton ring, Compton ERL, coherent pair production, or undulator for high-energy beam • 3-ring transformer & cooling scheme (D. Schulte) (Y. Papaphilippou) (H. Braun, E. Bulyak, T. Omori, V. Yakimenko) extraction ring (N turns) fast cooling ring (N turns) accumulator ring (N turns) (E. Bulyak)

  18. LHeC baseline parameters incl. e-Pb

  19. LHeC baseline parametersincl. e-Pb– cont’d

  20. electrical power budget

  21. choice of baseline layout J. Skrabacz, 2008 Single or double acceleration? How many revolutions for optimum energy gain? Can we reduce emittance growth and cost? racetrack shape with acceleration in one or both straight sections; shape optimized for minimum construction (& operation) cost

  22. input cost figures (2008 study) • rough estimate for cost / (unit length) extracted from XFEL, ILC and ELFE designs: • linac: 160 k$/m • - with an effective gradient of 11.8 MV/m (XFEL) • arc section: 50k$/m • - 300 M$ per ILC Damping Ring • drift straight: 10k$/m • - vacuum + perhaps some diagnostics?, taken as ~20% of cost of arc section from ELFE design • ILC tunnel cost: ~5k$/m • - already taken to be included in above numbers • - otherwise important only for the straight drifts, potentially raising the drift cost to 15k$/m

  23. construction cost at 60 GeV J. Skrabacz (assuming 15 MV/m) single linac each point has cost-optimized lengths of linac, arc, and drifts 2.5 turns 3 turns double linac ~400 MEuro 2-3 circulations are optimum at 60 GeV (w/o restraining energy loss)

  24. effective cost effective cost = construction cost + SR-dependent operation cost= construction cost+ lDESR [l] = M$/GeV l=10-100 M$/GeV! value for weight factor l? Ie=6.4 mA with DE=1 GeV over 1 year (107 s) → 36 GWh SRF electrical power; over 10 yrs: 360 GWh electricity cost ~50 $/MWh → ~20 M$ in total

  25. optimized cost vs energy J. Skrabacz J. Skrabacz, “Optimizing Cost and Minimizing Energy Loss in the Recirculating Race- Track Design of the LHeC Electron Linac,” U.M., CERN REU, 2008 adding weight parameter l in units of M$/(GeV energy loss) to limit operating cost “optimum of optimum” cost increases about linearly withenergy

  26. opt. circumference vs energy J. Skrabacz total circumference also increases linearly withenergy

  27. better shapes? J. Skrabacz “ballfield” designs with additional shape parameters might reduce energy loss, emittance growth, or cost

  28. extreme ballfieldsvs racetrack 60 GeV J. Skrabacz racetrack looks best after all

  29. cost-optimized #turns vs energy J. Skrabacz above 60 GeV single recirculation may be optimum! above ~140 GeV single linac! l=100

  30. single-pass higher energy linacs pulsed w/o energy recovery 7.9 km IP 140-GeV linac dump injector 0.4 km • Ee=140 GeV, <Ie>=0.27 mA, • L≈4x1031 cm-2s-1, extendable in energy final focus cw with 2-beam energy recovery V. Litvinenko, 2ndLHeC workshop Divonne 2009 L≈1035 cm-2s-1 , no SR, efficient ER, CLIC expertise, 2 linacs

  31. higher luminosity • L ≥ 1034 cm-2s-1 needed for epHiggs physics • higher brightness p beams for HL-LHC (LIU) • further squeezing bp* looks possible • higher e- current & smaller e-emittance • - 6.4 mA → 12.8 or 25.6 mA • (Cornell ERL: 100 mA; BNL eRHIC ERL: 50 mA (pol.)) • - ge= 50 mm → 20 mm at 1 nC bunch charge • (LCLS, PITZ sources ≤ 1 mm) • - we still had 20 MW power margin till 100 MW • - trend towards SC cavities with higher Q0 • (→ lower cryo power)

  32. SLAC Boeing BNL LANL – AFEL BNL/UCLA/SLAC BNL/KEK/SHI BNL/UCLA/SLAC LANL - APEX normalized emittance for 1 nC has been reduced from tens of mm to 1 mm Bruce Carlsten, SPACE CHARGE 2013 LHeC baseline 50 mm LCLS scaling: PITZ scaling:

  33. higher-Q0 NbSRF cavities world-record Q0 for a multi-cell cavity of the Cornell ERL, June 2013 M. Liepe& S. Posen Q0=1011 Q0=3x1010 Horizontal Test Cryostat 4 MV/m 18 MV/m LHeC baseline considers Q0=2.5x10 10 at lower fRF

  34. potential of Nb3SnSRF cavities R&D progressing at JLAB & Cornell LHeCtarget Data from P. Dhakal Robert Rimmer, JLAB

  35. LHeC Higgs factory (LHeC-HF) parameters

  36. SAPPHiREggHiggs factory 100 MW total wall-plug power, Lgg~6x1032 cm-2s-1 Reconfigured LHeC SAPPHiRE: Small Accelerator for Photon-Photon Higgs production using Recirculating Electrons

  37. LHeCep& ggHiggs factories (1 year = 107s at design luminosity)

  38. SRF/ERL test facility at CERN up to 4 cryo-modules beam energy up to 1 GeV Alessandra Valloni important milestone and key to future projects

  39. beyond 2030? “For time and the world do not stand still…” John F. Kennedy

  40. FCC - 80-100 km tunnel infrastructure in Geneva area – design driven by pp-collider (FHC) requirements with possibility of e+e- (TLEP) and p-e(FHeC) FCC (Future Circular Colliders) CDR and cost review for the next ESU (2018) (including injectors) 15 T  100 TeV in 100 km 20 T  100 TeV in 80 km F. Bordry

  41. key parameters for FHLC/FHeC e-energy = 60, 120, 250 GeV p energy = 50 TeV IP spot size determined by p e- current from FLC (SR power ≤ 50 MW) #IPs = 1 or 2

  42. preliminary (!) parameters for FHeC

  43. FCC Kick-off Meeting in Geneva next month http://indico.cern.ch/e/fcc-kickoff

  44. Team preparing FCC Kick-Off & Study study coordinator deputy coordinator Future Circular Colliders - Conceptual Design Study Study coordination, host state relations, global cost estimate M. Benedikt, F. Zimmermann High Field Magnets L. Bottura Supercon-ducting RF E. Jensen Cryogenics L. Tavian Specific Technologies (MP, Coll, Vac, BI, BT,PO) JM. Jimenez VL Hadron collider D. Schulte Infrastructure, cost estimates P. Lebrun e+ e- collider J. Wenninger Hadron injectors B. Goddard Physics and experiments Hadron physic Experiments, infrastructure A. Ball, F. Gianotti, M. Mangano e+ e- exper., physics A. BlondelJ.Ellis, P.Janot e- p physics + M. Klein e- p option Integration aspects O. Brüning Operation aspects, energy efficiency, OP & mainten., safety, environment. P. Collier Planning (Implementation roadmap, financial planning, reporting) F. Sonnemann looking for int’l co-conveners! contributors to LHeC design effort

  45. possible long-term strategy TLEP? (80-100 km, e+e-, up to ~350 GeV c.m.) PSB PS (0.6 km) LHC (26.7 km) SPS (6.9 km) VHE-LHC/FHC (pp, up to 100 TeVc.m.) HL-LHC LHeC & SAPPHiRE? FHeC as TLEP-FHC Collider ?! LHeCas TLEP injector? LHeC-FHC collider if TLEP is not constructed?! LHeC/FHeC: e±(60-250 GeV) – p (7and/or 50 TeV) collisions ! ≥50 years e+e-, pp, e±p/Aphysics at highest energies

  46. possible long-term time line Design, R&D LHC Constr. Physics Proto. Design, R&D HL-LHC Constr. Physics Design, R&D Physics LHeC/SAPPHiRE Constr. Constr. Physics +LHeC-FHC (w/o TLEP) Design, R&D TLEP? Physics Constr. Design, R&D Constr. Physics VHE-LHC/ FHC FHeC Design, R&D Physics Constr. (with TLEP)

  47. summary • LHeC design matured over past 6 years; CDR published in 2012; ERL baseline looks conservative • design parameters (circumference, beam energy, RF frequency, number of passes, etc.) can be further optimized for cost and/or performance • new high luminosity parameters for Higgs physics • LHeC-based gg collider Higgs factory (SAPPHiRE) • LHeC compatible with long-term strategy (FCC) • LHeC/SAPPHiRE RF & cryoidentical to TLEP/FLC’s – can bereused; remaining LHeC can serve as TLEP injector • FHeC: combination of TLEP/FLC and VHE-LHC/FHC withhighest-energy highest-luminosity e±p collisions; direct LHeC-FHC collisions as backup

  48. thank you for your attention

More Related