LARP Accelerator Systems Status, Plans, Questions

1. US LHC Accelerator Research Program BNL - FNAL- LBNL - SLAC LARP Accelerator Systems Status, Plans, Questions 14 January 2009 CERN-US Meeting, CERN Tom Markiewicz/SLAC

2. Personal Preamble • Previous LARP leadership had the attitude • “We are not a CERN job shop” • Currently, discussion shades to • “Why bother if CERN’s not interested” • DOE management CONSTANTLY tells us • “Fixed sum game, MANAGE, make the tough decisions, LARP can’t do everything…” • LARP programs with LARP hard deliverables have not been “on-time; on-budget” • Luminosity Monitor, Rotatable Collimator, Roman pot for UA9 • Fear of creating a similar but larger fiscal problem if begin a Crab Cavity • Need for better written handshake/documentation obvious • Impact of LHC schedule a touchy but important subject • Confusion in the minds of upper level managers between Phase I, II Lumi and Phase II collimation upgrades and LARP/APUL has created some ill will • Anything this group can do to help clarify this is helpful • LARP has tried to maximize the Accelerator Systems and to draw on non-LARP (i.e. laboratory) resources with some success • Fiscal situation not maintainable & will need to downsize LARP AS program to fund effort currently being “donated” by labs “as an investment” LARP Acc.Systems - T. Markiewicz

3. Outline • Introduce LARP Accelerator System task list and what LARP is doing to manage them and maintain communication. Invite your candid comments and clarifications • Prioritization • Grade what’s been done • Agreement on Deliverables & Milestones • Adequateness of LARP internal documentation for tasks • Status, reports, documentation,… • Bi-Lateral CERN/Task documentation • Technical specification of agreed deliverables, “Hand-off” criteria, specification of level of CERN/LARP support before & after handoff • Report on Luminosity Monitor recent history and status • Report on Rotatable Collimator • Comments on LLRF, Ecloud, Crab if time allows LARP Acc.Systems - T. Markiewicz

4. Task List & FY09 Budget2.9M$ LARP Acc.Systems - T. Markiewicz

5. Accelerator System Tasks that have “Finished” • By end of FY07, collaboration on • Tune & Coupling feedback • Schottky Monitor • AC Dipole • resulted in installed hardware. Uniformly deemed a SUCCESS. • “Hardware” was built to LARP designs by CERN: • no cost or schedule drama • In FY08 LARP provided modest support for testing, improvements, software interfaces and commissioning and in FY09 the line items remain with a funds to allow ‘Beam Commissioning’ • By end of FY07 • RHIC Benchmarking of SIXTRACK • MARS-based study of tertiary collimators • Irradiation study of Carbon & Glidcop collimator materials • resulted in presentations & publications. Not useless, but value discussable. • Each of these STUDIES is nominally finished • The irradiation study would continue if funds were available to support it LARP Acc.Systems - T. Markiewicz

6. Program Oversight • My experience as AS Program Leader in FY2008 has led to a number of actions • Form Accelerator Systems Advisory Committee to parallel Magnet Steering Comm. • Bruning, Fischer, Markiewicz, Peggs/Prebys, Ratti • ASAC meets (Webex) at least weekly on general matters or as crisis management team • New Initiative selection • Budget • Collaboration Meeting Planning • Luminosity Monitor Program Management • Structure LARP Tasks into units large enough to warrant regular WEBEX meetings and see to it that these are held with additional participation of Program Leader, Deputy, LARP Accel System managers AND CERN Points of Contact • As opposed to semi-annual reports of what Physicist X did at Lab Y for Task Z using his/her favorite simulation code • At CMs, apathy of general LARP membership to anything they are not personally involved in is striking & sad LARP Acc.Systems - T. Markiewicz

7. Project Management • LARP Acc. Systems is producing hardware for CERN in 3 areas • Lumi Monitor • Rotatable Collimator • Roman Pot for SPS Crystal Collimation Expt #UA9 • And is considering delivering a crab cavity prototype • My thoughts: • Each of these would ideally be managed outside of LARP • Annual reviews necessary but not sufficient • Aug. 2007 Lumi review & April ’08 CM10 did not foresee June’08 ‘crisis’ • Monthly budget reporting without “earned value” necessary but not sufficient • Lumi has convinced me that some external manager(s) must follow progress ~biweekly to fully understand the project in real time so that surprises do not happen • TWM is trying to do this for the UA9 Roman Pots (reporting to Eric) • No one forces TWM to do this for Rotatable Collimator LARP Acc.Systems - T. Markiewicz

8. CERN and LARP Communication • Occurs at various CERN levels • CERN Point(s) of Contact: • eg. Assmann (collimation); Bravin (Lumi) • CERN middle managers: Ostijic (IR Upgrade Czar) • CERN key managers: Evans/Myers • CERN LARP contact: Oliver Bruning • CERN Director • Roughly mapping onto LARP • LARP Task Leader • Markiewicz (Collimation); Ratti (Lumi) • LARP LAUC/APUL czar (Peggs/Wanderer) • LARP L1 (Markiewicz) • LARP Program Leader (Prebys) • OHEP (Strauss, Kovar) • US Lab leadership (Kahn-SLAC, Holmes-FNAL, Gourlay-LBL, Roser-BNL) • Oral “story” sometimes inconsistent and full set of players never in same room • Inadequate written correspondence • Improvement in both these areas required LARP Acc.Systems - T. Markiewicz

9. LARP Instrumentation Task Meetings • Chromaticity Feedback, Schottky Monitor, AC Dipole • No formal periodic meetings; assume sporadic contact with CERN POCs; reports at parallel sessions of LARP collab mtg (CM) • No direct management oversight • Luminosity Monitor • Regular LBL staff mtgs and Ratti/Bravin mtgs during CERN trips • Biweekly status meetings with • Prebys, Markiewicz, Bruning, Peggs, Ratti, Bravin, Corlett (LBL mgmt), 2 LBL EEs • Full grilling by AS at CM#11 followed by plenary report to LARP • LLRF Modelling • SLAC 5 person group plus 2 CERN POCs exchange email & visits • SLAC ARD presentations ~6 weeks and CM presentation • No direct management oversight LARP Acc.Systems - T. Markiewicz

10. LARP Collimation Task Meetings • Rotatable Collimator • Weekly staff (5) mtg at SLAC with web-posted progress report • Biweekly webex/video with CERN collimation group (5-10 people) • Report at parallel session of CM mtg (3 people attend) & included in plenary summary (to largely apathetic audience) • Crystal Collimation • Weekly Webex meeting to which all members of both T980 (Fermilab expt.) and CERN SPS UA9 are invited • Typically SLAC(6), BNL(1) plus Markiewicz, Prebys, Peggs & Scandale (CERN) • Approx. monthly reports from FNAL (Mokhov) on T980 • Unknown but large number of bi-lateral UA9 meetings in Europe • Regular meetings of FNAL T-980 staff & FNAL resident visitors • Semi annual mini crystal workshops & LARP CM presentations • I am personally disappointed that the synergy hopped for between these two complementary efforts is not being realized LARP Acc.Systems - T. Markiewicz

11. LARP Accelerator Physics Task Meetings • Beam-Beam Simulations in support of Electron Lens & Wire Compensation • No regular meetings to my knowledge • Annual mini-wkshp (eg. 12/3/08 at BNL) & report at parallel session of CM • Ecloud: Simulations, SPS Measurements & studies, SPS Vacuum chamber insert studiy • Monthly Webex attended by CERN (3), SLAC (3) and LBL(3) and typically Prebys & Markiewicz • Semi-annual meetings in context of global Ecloud effort (eg. EC Mitigation-08 CERN, 12/08) and CARE series of workshops • Reports in parallel session of CM • Crab Cavity • Monthly international webex • UK, KEK, CERN (incl. LARP-residents), BNL, SLAC, FNAL, LBL, AES • Prebys, Markiewicz, Peggs, Strait • Annual mini-workshop, quarterly(?) mtgs at CERN, LARP CMs & CARE • PS2 • Weekly/biweekly webex with BNL, FNAL, LBL & SLAC w/ Prebys & Markiewicz • CM and CERN organized workshops LARP Acc.Systems - T. Markiewicz

12. Many New Initiatives were Discussed at LARP CM#10-April 2008 BNL • The initiatives discussed were: • LLRF Studies at LHC • Control of Ecloud Instability in the SPS with Transverse RF Damping • SPS Ecloud Remediation via Grooved and Coated Vacuum Chambers • The CRYSTAL collimation test at SPS • An Optical Diffraction Monitor for LHC • Coherent Electron Cooling for LHC • Collimation Studies at LBNL’s HCX facility • Studies of Intensity Dependent Performance Limits to the LHC Injector Chain • PS2 Studies • Instrumentation Commissioning Proposal • The use of PEP-II “Model Independent Analysis” at LHC • The use of PEP-II “Phase Advance Analysis” at LHC LARP Acc.Systems - T. Markiewicz

13. LARP ASAC MeetingsBruning, Fischer, Markiewicz, Peggs, Ratti • Initiatives were graded on the following topics with the first three being considered the most important factors. The CERN point of contact canvassed the relevant parties at CERN to gauge CERN interest and committee consensus was reached on the other topics based on CM#10 presentations and supporting documentation. • Impact on LHC luminosity enhancement • Level of interest by CERN • State of art use of physics or technology • Level of institutional collaboration • Time scale • Average yearly cost • University Involvement • Relevance to the US Program • Whether or not the program would be done in any event without LARP funds • Level of CERN resources contributed to the program • Level of non-LARP US resources contributed to the program • Definite end of program with clear definition of deliverable or result LARP Acc.Systems - T. Markiewicz

14. NI Decisions for Spring 2008 • While the level of support LARP can provide is in most cases less than that requested by the proponents, the LARP ASAC has agreed to: • Create a LLRF Studies task under Instrumentation • Expand the scope of the existing “Electron Cloud” task to include • Ecloud Simulations • SPS Ecloud Feedback • SPS Ecloud vacuum chamber study • Support the CRYSTAL collimation experiment at the SPS as part of the existing Crystal Collimation task • Create a new “PS2 Studies” task under Accelerator Physics whose scope still needs more definition but which will include the proposed intensity limitation to the LHC injector chain performance • Approved by LARP exec committee Sept. 2008 • Prebys letter to all LARP members with announcement LARP Acc.Systems - T. Markiewicz

15. Luminosity Monitors2 per IP + One Spare Shaper (& Chassis) Preamp/HV Assembly Detector Interface ChassisGAS Distribution/Monitoring PanelPC for Local Monitoring 1 per IP DAQ Firmware LARP Acc.Systems - T. Markiewicz

16. Luminosity Monitor Crisis & Response • As Lumi is/will be the first LARP produced hardware installed in LHC it is essential that we deliver • June 2008 letter from CERN luminosity monitoring group leader Enrico Bravin raised concern that • Lumi might be be late for 2008 run • PMT system would be deployed for 2008 • As long as robust system ready for 2009, no harm • Response: • Major LARP support in FY09, before CY2009 run, to fully complete the system (electronics fabrication, firmware, software & integration) • Biweekly meetings of LARP ASAC w/Ratti-Bravin since June 29, 2008 • 13 meetings held with written reports (TWM) • Greatly increased involvement of LBL management (Corlett + EE Head) • MS Project maintained by LBL EE & kept up to date • Ongoing discussions on how to minimize commissioning cost & handoff LARP Acc.Systems - T. Markiewicz

17. Lumi Status: All Hardware on Track for pre-April 2009 Installation & Integration • Detectors • 4 detectors in their final configuration at CERN and spare at LBL • Installation will happen upon CERN’s request • CERN activities at point 1 and 5 currently preclude chamber installation • Preamps • Two or four needed finished • Protoype unit will be upgraded to “production” version • about 2 weeks behind schedule, but within the float allowed • Shapers • Boards ready & chassis panels back from the shops; Need integration • Plan to ship in January • Detector Interface Units (2) • Both ready to be shipped (ahead of schedule) • Gas Panels • Finished & turned over to CERN • One FM needs to be replaced & gas monitoring software tweaked • Firmware • Phase I (Low Luminosity “Counting”) complete • Phase II (High Lum pulse height with centroid deconvolution) a future project LARP Acc.Systems - T. Markiewicz

18. Points for Discussion: Luminosity Monitor • Satisfaction with currently planned production and schedule • Level and duration of continued involvement of LBL team as luminosity increases • Adequacy of current and planned future documentation • Agreement on performance benchmarks for system • ?? LARP Acc.Systems - T. Markiewicz

19. US LHC Accelerator Research Program BNL - FNAL- LBNL - SLAC LARP Rotatable Collimators for LHC Phase II Collimation • Adapt rotatable NLC collimator design concept to LHC: “RC” • Build and test one collimator jaw with 10kW resistive heaters to verify thermo-mechanical performance • Minimize deflection when absorbs with 60kW for 10 sec • Build a collimator that can be destructively beam tested at new TT60 facility yet which still rotates, provides clean collimation surfaces, whose cooling system survives and which is UHV • Build a 2nd(?) fully functional collimator & test it at LHC Gene Anzalone (CAD), Eric Doyle (ME-FEA, ret.), Lew Keller (FLUKA, ret.), Steve Lundgren (ME), Tom Markiewicz (Phys), Reggie Rogers (Mech Tech) & Jeff Smith (PD)

20. Rotatable Collimator Design LARP Acc.Systems - T. Markiewicz

21. Rotatable Collimator Manufacturing LARP Acc.Systems - T. Markiewicz

22. RF Transition Piece and “Geneva” Rotating Drive LARP Acc.Systems - T. Markiewicz

23. RC0 10kW Distortion Test LARP Acc.Systems - T. Markiewicz

24. Rotating Collimator Drawing Treenot counting prototype pieces, fixtures, redesigns, etc LARP Acc.Systems - T. Markiewicz

25. RC Status • SLAC team continues to feel optimistic that a fully functional prototype can be finished in FY09. • Materials, fabrication requisitions for 3 new jaws have been placed and some parts are in house • Mechanically precise UHV parts are difficult • Accepted 2/6 molydenum shafts with damage • In RC0, had two major machining & brazing snafus • Undermanned relative to CERN Phase II (25 FTEs over 2 years) and underfunded (8 MCHF M&S) • “Finishing” and integrating prototype with as many parts and subassemblies as RC in time will be challenging • Very good will between Assmann & TWM but need firmer handshake • TT60 prototype AND LHC prototype • Formal requirements documents • Cu tubing versus CuNi tubing • Level of CERN support • Handoff definition • Commissioning plan LARP Acc.Systems - T. Markiewicz

26. Points for Discussion: Rotatable Collimator Program • Assmann/Markiewicz agree to a timeline for a technology decision on Phase II Secondary collimators that requires • Adequate LHC running with Phase I collimation system to understand limitations and possible schemes to ameliorate efficiency/impedance issues • Completion of TT60 test facility (with SLAC participation) and robustness testing of LARP RC prototype & two CERN prototypes • Improvement of 3 designs, if indicated by TT60 tests, & installation and tests in LHC • Final technology, lattice dependent choice of a set of secondary Phase II collimators • Impact of any decision on “Cold Collimators” on this plan not clear • Current discussions to inclusion of any production of the 30 Phase II secondary collimators as part of APUL and the so-called Phase I IR Upgrade not clear and generates negative comments (“I hear CERN is not interested, so why are we bothering with this”) • Written documentation on what must be delivered, performance specifications, CERN support for delivrables, eventual continuing involvement for commisiopning, etc are sorely needed: How do we ensure task manager(s) supply this LARP Acc.Systems - T. Markiewicz

27. LHC LLRF TaskJohn Fox , Claudio Rivetta, Themis Mastorides, Dan van Winkle • Why SLAC? • PEP-II and LHC have same basic LLRF architecture • SLAC Group has much unique expertise and well developed set of software tools developed for PEP-II that can be used to configure the LHC system, study it and improve it • Progress in 2008 • Five multi-weeks trips in April, June 2008, November • SLAC software model configured for LHC and interfaced to control system • In post-Sept.19,2008 world, remote diagnostics more highly valued than ever • Near Term Plans • 8 person-weeks at CERN in CY09 for beam commissioning • Data from closed loop LLRF system with beam present will be compared against model and changes to LHC hardware configuration suggested • Expand model to include feedback & longitudinal emittance dilution • Eventually, develop theory & programs to model the long-term (24 hr) behavior • Costs • Predominately labor provided by SLAC Accelerator Development funds in FY08, FY09 LARP Acc.Systems - T. Markiewicz

28. Sample LLRF Result Open Loop Xfer Function from time-domain excitation technique vs. model result (green) LARP Acc.Systems - T. Markiewicz

29. Transverse RF Feedback in SPS to Control Beam Instabilities Produced by Electron Cloud Effects • Focus Ecloud simulation effort on effects expected in SPS that could be mitigated via techniques pioneered by US labs • SPS Ecloud dynamics studies predict • Horizontal - coupled-bunch behavior • Vertical - single bunch-like instability • 2008 Plan (continuing in ’09) • Measure & quantify Ecloud effects on beam (instrumentation) • Compare measurements with E cloud/beam models • ≥2009 Plan • Develop beam-FB simulation, evaluate possible feedback implementations. • Propose a technical implementation & develop Engineering Specs • Proof of principle experiments & technical R&D • Eventual possible LHC construction project item LARP Acc.Systems - T. Markiewicz

30. Grooved Vacuum Insertion Test at the SPS for Electron Cloud Studies • Electron cloud mitigation test chambers for SPS in prep • SLAC is manufacturing two grooved insertions • Metal folding & razor blades techniques for 1mm max. height • Installation & Testing planned Metal Folding: Form multiple folds. [EMEGA Company, USA] Brazed-up Assembly: Use individual razor type foil blades LARP Acc.Systems - T. Markiewicz

31. LARP Acc.Systems - T. Markiewicz

32. T980 and UA9 • Single-particle dynamics study brings knowledge applicable to LHC using Si tracking detectors in Roman Poys Improved T980 Goniometer and October 2008 Channeling Results 152mm x-y Dual sided Roman Pot for UA9 manufactured by LARP/SLAC LARP Acc.Systems - T. Markiewicz

33. Points for Discussion: Crab Cavity • Plan for proof of principle experiment at LHC • One cavity/cryostat system or two? • Location, available space, infrastructure, time scale for installation & removal • Fabrication details, cost & schedule • Measurements to be made and definition of success • Management of multilab effort with LARP, CERN and industry • Relevance to final configuration • Local (2 per beam per IP) versus global • Time scale, cost, etc. • Studies (e.g. collimation) LARP Acc.Systems - T. Markiewicz

34. FY09 Challenges in Accelerator Systems • Deliver Luminosity Monitor and end task • Deliver RC Prototype and scale back task • Launch Crab Cavity with correct level of effort ($), matching CERN interests & schedule • Craft and launch PS2 program • Work effectively with CERN on collimation component of APUL • Synergize T980 and UA9 crystal collimation teams and control costs of UA9 Roman Pot LARP Acc.Systems - T. Markiewicz