LARP Accelerator Systems Status, Plans, Questions

1
LARP Accelerator Systems Status, Plans,
Questions
US LHC Accelerator Research Program
BNL - FNAL- LBNL - SLAC

• 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 CERNs not interested
• DOE management CONSTANTLY tells us
• Fixed sum game, MANAGE, make the tough
  decisions, LARP cant 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

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 whats 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

4
Task List FY09 Budget2.9M
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

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

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 June08 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

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

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 CM11 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

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

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

12
Many New Initiatives were Discussed at LARP
CM10-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 LBNLs 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

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 CM10 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

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

15
Luminosity Monitors2 per IP One Spare
Shaper ( Chassis)
Preamp/HV Assembly
Detector Interface ChassisGAS Distribution/Monito
ring PanelPC for Local Monitoring 1 per IP
DAQ Firmware
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

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 CERNs 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

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
• ??

19
LARP Rotatable Collimators for LHC Phase II
Collimation
US LHC Accelerator Research Program
BNL - FNAL- LBNL - SLAC

• 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
21
Rotatable Collimator Manufacturing
22
RF Transition Piece and Geneva Rotating Drive
23
RC0 10kW Distortion Test
24
Rotating Collimator Drawing Treenot counting
prototype pieces, fixtures, redesigns, etc
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 MS)
• 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

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

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

28
Sample LLRF Result
Open Loop Xfer Function from time-domain
excitation technique vs. model result (green)
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 RD
• Eventual possible LHC construction project item

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
31
(No Transcript)
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
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)

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