Introduction and Overview

1. Introduction and Overview Eric Prebys LARP Program Director

2. Outline • Background • Progress and Highlights in 2010 • Summary of findings from last review • Chamonix • New schedule and implications for LARP • Future planning and this Review E. Prebys, DOE Review, FNAL

3. LHC Accelerator Research Program (LARP) • Proposed in 2003 to coordinate efforts at US labs related to the LHC accelerator (as opposed to CMS or ATLAS) • Originally FNAL, BNL, and LBNL • SLAC joined shortly thereafter • Some work (AC Dipole) supported at UT Austin • LARP Goals • Advance International Cooperation in High Energy Accelerators • Advance High Energy Physics • By helping the LHC integrate luminosity as quickly as possible • Advance U.S. Accelerator Science and Technology • LARP includes projects related to initial operation, but a significant part of the program concerns the LHC upgrades E. Prebys, DOE Review, FNAL

4. LARP Subtasks • Accelerator Systems • Accelerator physics • Instrumentation • Lumi monitor • Schottky • Tune tracker • AC Dipole • Other hardware • Collimation • Crab cavities • Low Level RF • Magnet Systems • Goal: demonstrate Nb3Sn as a viable technology for the ultimate upgrade of the LHC • ~half the program • Programmatic Activities • Program management, travel, meetings, etc • Toohig Fellowship • Long Term Visitor (LTV) program E. Prebys, DOE Review, FNAL

5. Some big news since the last review • CC09 Crab Cavity Review • Crab cavities endorsed for high luminosity upgrade of the LHC. • Chamonix meeting • Very important decisions about energy, schedule, future • More about this shortly. • LHC has restarted! • Luminosity is steadily increasing • All indications are that it’s running well E. Prebys, DOE Review, FNAL

6. Some highlights since the last review • Accelerator Systems • Instrumentation • All LARP instrumentation in and operational • Tune tracking • AC Dipole • Lumi Monitor • Schottky • Synchrotron light monitor • LLRF cavity characterization tools • Collimation • First rotatable collimator almost complete • Integrated into plan for CERN qualification and Phase II collimation. • Good results from UA9 and T980 crystal collimation experiments. • Beam Physics • E-cloud work driving design of LLRF feedback system in SPS • New effort on flat bunches for Large Pewinski angle scheme • Lots of general physics • eg 4 contributed orals + 33 posters at IPAC10 Heavily used in day to day operation E. Prebys, DOE Review, FNAL

7. TQS02c test (CERN) TQS03a test (CERN) SSL 1.9K SSL 1.9K SSL 4.4K SSL 4.4K Highlights (cont’d) • Magnet Systems • LQ reached design goal!! • 90 mm x 3.6m @ 200 T/m • Original (2003) goal of LARPprogram • First tests of HQ • Already exceeds Phase I specification • Conductor chosen for future magnets • 108/127 cable shows less flux instability than 54/61 E. Prebys, DOE Review, FNAL

8. LARP personnel programs • Long Term Visitors program • Past: • Steve Peggs (BNL): crystal collimatoin (UA9) • Jim Strait (FNAL): machine protection, incident analysis • Current/Future: • Alan Fisher (SLAC): synchrotron light monitor • Rama Calaga (BNL, former Toohig): crab cavities, commissioning • ElianaGianfelice (FNAL): abort gap, commissioning • Chandra Bhat (FNAL): Flat bunches • UliWienands (SLAC): PS2/PS • Toohig Fellowship • Past • Helene Felice (LBNL, now postdoc) • Rama Calaga (BNL, now LTV) • RiccardoDiMaria (BNL, now CERN Fellow) • Current • Ryoichi Miyamoto (BNL, former FNAL joint PhD) • DariuszBoican (FNAL) E. Prebys, DOE Review, FNAL

9. A note about Toohig Fellows • John Fox (SLAC) has taken over chairmanship of the Toohig Committee, and we are in the final interview phase for two very promising candidates (will make an offer to at least one). • Will solicit a new round of applications in the fall, with the goal of conducting final interviews at our collaboration meeting in April 2011. E. Prebys, DOE Review, FNAL

10. FY10 Budget E. Prebys, DOE Review, FNAL

11. Mid-year contingency release $701.8k remaining E. Prebys, DOE Review, FNAL

12. Budget tracking: overall E. Prebys, DOE Review, FNAL

13. Accelerator Systems E. Prebys, DOE Review, FNAL

14. Magnet Systems E. Prebys, DOE Review, FNAL

15. Programmatic Activities E. Prebys, DOE Review, FNAL

16. 2009 Recommendations: Accelerator Systems • Quality and Relevance: • Exploit LARP-installed hardware for full physics potential, and to close design loop • Response: Agree. Our Toohig fellows and Long Term Visitors have remained closely aligned with LARP hardware. • Develop independent analysis of luminosity upgrade optimization path, and place LARP activities within this path. • Response: We continue to work closely with CERN to most efficiently allocate LARP resources toward understanding the best upgrade path and contributing to it; however, we feel that is not practical, nor do we have the resources, to launch a separate independent effort. E. Prebys, DOE Review, FNAL

17. Accelerator Systems (cont’d) • Beam Dynamics Coordination: • Develop an independent LARP effort in LHC beam dynamics, with student/Toohig Fellow emphasis • Response: the LARP beam dynamics efforts are largely independent, although as always coordinated with CERN • Make use of beam dynamics calculations to guide magnet development efforts • Response: magnet specifications will be part of the overall luminosity upgrade proposal. USLARP has been formally invited to join with EuCARD and CERN to produce this proposal. • E-Cloud • Proceed to next level of experiment • Define project goals • Response: Agree on both. We are pursuing experiments and currently focusing on the goal of defining the feedback system in the SPS E. Prebys, DOE Review, FNAL

18. Accelerator Systems (cont’d) • E-lens • LeLeverage off of RHIC development, and installed FNAL infrastructure • Concentrate on hollow-beam R&D • Response: we plan to limit our work on beam beam compensation on hold pending results from RHIC and concentrate on hollow beam for beam scraping. • Instrumentation (Schottky, Lumi, AC Dipole, Sync. Light Monitor) • Exploit physics potential • Utilize Toohig Fellows and Long Term Visitors • Response: Agree, and have been using this model. However, our manpower and resources are limited, so our goal is always to get our hardware under CERN control. E. Prebys, DOE Review, FNAL

19. Accelerator Systems (cont’d) • Collimators • After finishing RC1, evaluate direction of program jointly with CERN • Make sure resources demanded are likely to yield project with reasonable chance of implementation • Response: strongly agree. We have been working very closely with Ralph Assmann in integrate our design into the overall CERN plans for Phase II collimation. • Crab Cavities • Should project go forward, support in base program • Response: strongly agree. Crab cavities are too big for LARP. In light of the decisions at CC09, we are awaiting a plan from CERN to inform a separate APUL style US program. E. Prebys, DOE Review, FNAL

20. Accelerator Systems (cont’d) • Funding* • Do not be shy about funding requests. LARP has shown its worth • Put place-holder in lieu of specific projects in far-future funding plans • Response: very strongly agree. LARP is entirely resource limited, and we could effectively utilize dramatically increased resources. *my favorite recommendation E. Prebys, DOE Review, FNAL

21. 2009 Recommendations: Magnet Systems • Find a method to more assuredly match the LARP Magnet Program to CERN’s needs. • Response: agree. We have continued to work closely with CERN to assure that our magnet program successfully demonstrates the technology. We feel that our work is largely responsible for the recent endorsement of Nb3Sn as the base line technology for the high luminosity upgrade. • Develop your best projection for a prioritized list of specific technical results that will be needed to form the basis of a Phase 2 technology decision and APUL2 transition. • Response: agree. See details in magnet talks E. Prebys, DOE Review, FNAL

22. Magnet Systems (cont’d) • Examine carefully which of the above results can be obtained using the 90 mm platform (TQ and LQ) now available. Use that platform to the greatest extent possible. Choose an HQ length that is just long enough to provide adequate body field region for evaluation of field quality. • Response: agree. We are continuing are studies of the LQ as we test the initial HQ. We are still working to determine the optimum length for the next HQ. • Make a technical risk assessment to identify risks that may arise from test results, alternatives to mitigate the risks, and potential impacts on cost and schedule. • Response: strongly agree and are working towards that goal. E. Prebys, DOE Review, FNAL

23. 2009 Recommendations: Management • Be more proactive: establish independently a plausible luminosity upgrade path, for LARP use for Programmatic Guidance • MS: should define now a quantitative deliverable Phase II IR Quad Design • AS: provide an independent assessment of the LHC IR region beam-dynamics/optics as it evolves to provide quantitative guidance for the magnet team • Response: We are working very hard to integrate both our MS and AS efforts into the overall design of the final upgrade. We simply do not have the resources to launch an independent, parallel effort, nor do we feel such an effort would have a high probability of success with CERN. E. Prebys, DOE Review, FNAL

24. Management (cont’d) • AS Incubator activities versus prototype hardware fabrication? • Ad Hoc initiatives with high intellectual content are good and match LARP as a program • Building hardware 'closes the loop' and this is also good • Introduce a mechanism for deciding when to make the transition from program to project: • a greater than X$ cost threshold, • or deliverables are involved • or the activity has a fixed schedule • When such tests are met for Ad Hoc studies then provide a project definition (cost, schedule, technical specs, milestones and deliverables) • Response: agree. We are working along these lines for both the crab cavity effort and the collimation effort. E. Prebys, DOE Review, FNAL

25. Key Chamonix (and beyond) Decisions • Energy • Joints not reliable above 3.5 TeV • Run at 3.5+3.5 for ~fb-1 or roughly end of 2011, then shut down for ~18 months to do all repairs to get to 6.5-7.0. • Collimation • Initial (Phase I*) collimation only good to a luminosity of a few 1033. • A plan is in place for collimation which is good to “ultimate” luminosity of a few 1034. • Schedule being worked out • Will involve LARP collimators, if they pass tests in SPS and HiRadMat • Crab Cavities • In a major shift from last year, crab cavities are now considered part of the base line plan for the Phase II upgrade • They worked at KEK • They don’t require PS2 • They lead to lower instantaneous rates than Large Pewinski Angle Solution • LARP has played a major role in this *note confusing inconsistent “phases” for collimation and triplet upgrade E. Prebys, DOE Review, FNAL

26. Chamonix wrt CERN Upgrades • In 2014, the LHC will optimistically accumulate ~10’s of fb-1, and the luminosity will still be increasing. • The lifetime of the existing triplet magnets is ~500 fb-1 • Is it likely the experiments will want to stop for a year upgrade followed by a year of re-commissioning? • Decision • Eliminate the two phase upgrade. Focus on a single upgrade which will reach a leveled luminosity of > 5x1034 cm-2s-1. • Base line recommendation includes both Nb3Sn quadrupoles and crab cavities E. Prebys, DOE Review, FNAL

27. Impact of Chamonix Decisions on LARP • The energy decision affects LARP only indirectly • e.g. we will have to maintain a presence to commision lumi. mon. • Generally, all the decisions at Chamonix validate the LARP program • If we can deliver prototypes on time, at least some LARP collimators will play a role in the Phase II Collimation. • Crab cavities, which were championed by LARP, are now part of the base line planning for the Phase II luminosity upgrade. • Although the PS2 effort has been deferred, LARP has focused on instabilities and collective effects, work which will be fully applicable to improving the existing PS or PSB upgrade. • LARP is now acknowledged as the leader of the Nb3Sn R&D. • Upgrade timing • The 2020 date is consistent with LARP’s plans. If the date moves to 2018, we would need additional funding in the next few years (see magnet talks) E. Prebys, DOE Review, FNAL

28. PSB Energy Upgrade: New Potential Opportunity • It has been pointed out that increasing the energy of the PSB from 1.4 2.0 GeV could potentially provide improvement similar to that promised by the PS2 • A CERN working group led by Klaus Hanke examined this, found no show stoppers, and has produced a conceptual plan. • We are discussing potential LARP involvement • Shielding/beam dump calculations? • Space charge modeling? • MD studies? • Other? • See talk by Uli Wienands * *S. Myers’ summary of talk by M. Giovanozzi at Chamonix 2010 E. Prebys, DOE Review, FNAL

29. Planning for the future • A lot of work has gone into coordinating US activities with CERN in the area of accelerator science • In addition to our work, Dennis Kovar has met with Steve Myers and Rolf Heuer several times. • In addition, the cancelation of the Phase I upgrade has suspended the existing APUL project and put the funds which had tentatively been assigned to that project in an undefined state. • Possibilities: • Quickly identify new tasks at a level of development sufficient to become production projects • Increase LARP funding for promising R&D that could become projects on a slightly longer time scale • Chief candidates: • Collimation • Crab Cavities • SPS Feedback system • New magnet tooling applicable to ultimate magnet production. E. Prebys, DOE Review, FNAL

30. Steve Myers’ Priorities wrtUS Involvement • R&D on superconductors and magnets. An enhancement of this R&D may allow us to make a decision by 2013 on the choice of the type of quadrupoles to be used for the luminosity upgrade foreseen for the period 2018-2020. In addition R&D on higher field dipoles would allow us to exchange existing dipoles in the dispersion suppressor zones with shorter higher field ones and thereby liberate space for the installation of the collimators. (USLARP) • R&D on crab cavities. Crab cavities may become an essential ingredient in the luminosity upgrade foreseen for 2018-2020. This work has already begun and we would like to step up the pace.(USLARP) • R&D for superconducting links to allow removal of the power supplies from the radiation areas, and thereby avoid single event upsets • Construction and delivery of half of the insertion quads needed for the new insertions.(APUL) • Collimation may need in the future the rotatable metallic collimators developed at SLAC. Such collimators may be needed if transverse impedance begins to limit the intensity and also as replacements for some collimators of the present system. (USLARP) (UA9) Crystal collimation is also an R&D subject for USLARP but of lower priority. LARP E. Prebys, DOE Review, FNAL

31. Myers’ Top Ten (cont’d) • Construction and delivery of superconducting links for remote cold powering (bring power converters to the surface) to avoid single event upsets. • For the SPS performance upgrade, coating of (or possibly grooves in) the vacuum chamber will be necessary to mitigate against the electron cloud build up.(USLARP/APUL) • For the SPS performance upgrade, fast wide-band beam feedback will be needed to stabilize the high intensity beams. Such systems have been developed at SLAC for PEP II. (APUL) • For cleaning (scraping) LHC beams, the hollow electron beam lens may prove to be the most efficient means of removing halos form high intensity LHC beams. Such a lens has been developed at FNAL. (USLARP) • For the energy upgrade of the PS Booster we will need to replace many power supplies and septa and fast kicker systems.(APUL) LARP E. Prebys, DOE Review, FNAL

32. APUL vs. LARP • In response to request from the DOE, Myers produced a second list of possible “shovel ready” items for which some of the money earmarked for APUL could be spent: • Working spare SC D1 separator magnet to replace the defective spare which BNL built for the LHC • Could either repair the damaged magnet or build a new one • High frequency feedback system for the SPS • Along the lines of LARP E-cloud/LLRF work • Prototype crab cavity • Collimation system for the SPS • This one is somewhat confusing. SPS collimation is only in a very conceptual state right now. • A list of “checkbook engineering” items, which we and the DOE don’t find interesting. • In a phone conversation with Steve Myers, he verified that LHC collimation should rightly have appeared on the list as well. LARP E. Prebys, DOE Review, FNAL

33. Decisions wrt to short term APUL funds • One of the ground rules for the first $7M in APUL funds was that a successful project go to CD-1 by ~the end of August and complete by the end of FY12 • Of the projects cited, only the D1 spare could realistically be ready on that time scale. • Nevertheless, we see this list as strong endorsement for several LARP activities • Collimation • SPS Feedback system • Crab cavities and will argue that future APUL money be reprogrammed into LARP to support these activities. E. Prebys, DOE Review, FNAL

34. A Note about off-project funds • LARP relies heavily on contributions from the core programs at the labs, particularly • Scientific effort in Accelerator Systems • General superconducting R&D in the Magnet Systems (eg, mirror magnet effort). • Because of budget issues at SLAC, there is a possibility that this “off-project” effort will be dramatically reduced: • Currently at the level of 4 FTE’s ~$1.2M • Our current “blue sky” budget, assumes we will have to make up at least half of this from direct LARP funds. • If SLAC core support is reduced without a commensurate increase of LARP funding, our Accelerator Systems efforts will be significantly hindered. E. Prebys, DOE Review, FNAL

35. Summary • This has been a very successful year for LARP • All LARP instrumentation in and working, including several devices vital to day-to-day operation. • LQ met the design goals set 7 years ago. • Initial tests of HQ • Nb3Sn has been chosen as the base line technology for the full luminosity upgrade of the LHC • In a dramatic shift, CERN has strongly endorsed crab cavity development. • Our LTV’s and Toohig Fellows continue to do first rate work at CERN. • We have gained recognition at CERN and been asked to formally participate in plans for the full luminosity upgrade. • We hope to take advantage of the opportunity to redirect funds formally allocated to APUL to very worthy projects within LARP. E. Prebys, DOE Review, FNAL