1. HL-LHC: project status and plans Lucio Rossi – CERN @ LARP CM16, Montauk 16 May 2011

2. Content Scope Structure A few WPs non included in LARP Management Situation of HiLumi FP7 DS 16 May 2011L.Rossi @ LARP CM162

3. How the luminosity might evolve optimistic to 2012, then prudent: nominal 16 May 2011L.Rossi @ LARP CM16 Data from M. Lamont Graph E. Todesco NOT yet validated in LMC Based on 15 months LS1 now under change 3

4. 16 May 2011L.Rossi @ LARP CM16 Data from M. Lamont Graph E. Todesco NOT yet validated in LMC How the luminosity might evolve optimistic to 2012, then nominal -cont 220 inv fb by end of 2020 Based on 15 months LS1 now under change 4

5. Lumi evolution: more otpimistic (ultimate=2xnominal) is reached 16 May 2011L.Rossi @ LARP CM16 If LHC performs « nominal »: the upgrade is required by the saturation If LHC performs better, saturation is 2 years later, but radiation limits may come in earlier In such case we may reach 320 inv. fb for end of 2020. Data from M. Lamont Graph E. Todesco NOT yet validated in LMC Based on 15 months LS1 now under change 5

6. Not yet approved! S. Myers 11 April 2011

7. The goal The main objective of HL-LHC is to implement a hardware configuration and a set of beam parameters that will allow the LHC to reach the following targets: A peak luminosity of 5×10 34 cm -2 s -1 with levelling, allowing: An integrated luminosity of 250 fb -1 per year, enabling the goal of 3000 fb -1 twelve years after the upgrade. This luminosity is more than ten times the luminosity reach of the first 10 years of the LHC lifetime. 16 May 2011L.Rossi @ LARP CM167

8. Goal – cont. Levelled lumi of LL p =5  10 34 s -1 cm -2 (not Hz cm -2 ) Annual integrated luminosty: IL =250 fb-1 – More than 1 fb -1 a day Which is more important? I guess IL. We take L p as guideline, not a barrier, however it is understood that this is the nominal limit. These goals are already questioning parameter space of Linear Collider: we need to be correct, optimist but not overoptimist 16 May 2011L.Rossi @ LARP CM168

9. We need to have potential for L p =10-15  10 34 (before levelling) – Today the preferred baseline is to reach 5 10 34 and then « crabbing ». But may be we put crab at max immediately and then use another parameters. – We cannot rely only on one scheme: we need to have scheme with very low  and not small , we need to explore very high beam current and moderate beam current, and having more than on leveling methods. – Many actions will be needed in addition to the most visible being discussed today to reach integrated : Turn around time: will allow « releasing » beam current (protection) Stops, Shutdowns, etc… – Advanced robotics and monitoring? – Remove on surface of sensible equipments. To be worked out with experiments The upgrade is « ultimate consolidation », too. I see these actions as a « continuum » with some spike activities, the biggest being the final installation around 2021-22 16 May 2011L.Rossi @ LARP CM169

10. example HL-LHC parameters,  *=15 cm parametersymbolnom.nom.* HL crabHL sb + lrcHL 50+lrc protons per bunchN b [10 11 ] 1.151.7 1.782.163.77 bunch spacing  t [ns] 2550 25 50 beam currentI [A] 0.580.43 0.911.090.95 longitudinal profile Gauss rms bunch length  z [cm] 7.55 5.07.55 beta* at IP1&5  [m] 0.55 0.15 full crossing angle  c [  rad] 285 (508-622)508 Piwinski parameter  c  z /(2*  x *) 0.65 0.01.422.14 tune shift  Q tot 0.0090.0136 0.0110.0080.010 potential pk luminosityL [10 34 cm -2 s -1 ] 11.1 10.69.010.1 events per #ing 1940 95 189 effective lifetime  eff [h] 44.930 13.9 16.814.7 run or level timet run,level [h] 15.212.2 4.35 4.294.34 e-c heat SEY=1.2P [W/m] 0.20.1 0.4 0.60.3 SR+IC heat 4.6-20 KP SR+IC [W/m] 0.320.30 0.62 1.301.08 IBS  rise time (z, x)  IBS,z/x [h] 59, 10240, 69 38, 668, 3318, 31 annual luminosity L int [fb -1 ] 5758 300 29 March 201110L.Rossi@ATLASupgrade_Oxford

11. Here the critical zone in IP1 and IP5 16 May 2011L.Rossi @ LARP CM16 ATLAS 1. Change of Triplet + D1 and all IR; but it is not enough 2. We need to touch deeply also the matching section lay-out; 5. For collimation we would like to change also this part, DS in the continous cryostat 3. We need to insert Crab Cavities in the matching section; 11 4. LR BB compensation wires

12. Structure By deliverable – Study and R&D (big part in FP7 HiLumi Design Study and Eucard(2)) – Construction tooling&infrastructure, if needed, components, Assembly Test (on surface) – Installation, commissioning This way external contribution are easy to evidence and to account Also is easy to do a cost-to-completion and decision making by line management My view is to agree at Management level the cost (M+P) and time profile, then transfer resources (with clear control) to Department/Groups. It is their job to efficiently manage it and our job to check, to see sufferance or excess and propose transfers/integrations. Contingency at CERN level (or Project with full transparency toward management, but see US project: in this way contingency is always used) The cost-structure should be based on CORE-cost. This will easy in-kind contribution and make them visible. Next slides: quick overview, details and substructure to be discussed with various leaders of projects and systems. First INTERNAL(CERN) meeting held on 14 April 2011 (Indico, select Project, look for HL-LHC) http://indico.cern.ch/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=132315http://indico.cern.ch/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=132315 16 May 2011L.Rossi @ LARP CM1612

13. HL-LHC composition Collimation Project Matching section and correctors Beam Diagnostics High Field Magnets R&D HE-LHC Studies Hardware Commissioning 16 May 2011L.Rossi @ LARP CM1613

14. L.Rossi @ LARP CM1616 May 2011 Cold powering system: electrical transfer of the current from the room temperature terminal of the current leads to the magnet bus (LHe). It is an active mechanical, electrical and cryogenic system that incorporates superconducting parts - in the LHC High Temperature Superconductor (Bi-2223) in the current leads and Low Temperature Superconductor (Nb-Ti) in the bus. Cold Powering LHC: DFBs in line with the magnets in most of the cases. Power converters are in the tunnel in dedicated alcoves -as near as possible to the the DFBs. Current Leads SC bus bar DFB From A. Ballarino - CERN 14

15. Link L.Rossi @ LARP CM1616 May 2011 SC bus bar DFB Powering via remote power converters requires the use superconducting links Current Leads Electrical transfer at cryogenic temperature across long lengths From A. Ballarino - CERN 15

16. L.Rossi @ LARP CM1616 May 2011 Advantages of remote powering: -Safer long-term operation of powering equipment (power converters, current leads and associate auxiliary devices) located in a radiation-free environment; -Safer access of personnel to equipment for maintenance, repair, diagnostic and routine tests interventions; - Reduced time of interventions on power converters, current leads and DFBs if the powering equipment is located outside of the tunnel areas – gain in machine availability ; - Free space in the beam areas which becomes available for other equipment. Cold Powering via Superconducting Links From A. Ballarino - CERN 16

17. L.Rossi @ LARP CM1616 May 2011 LocationEquipment concerned P7DFBA and DFBM: DFBAM+DFBMH (P7L, RR73) DFBAN+DFBMH (P7R, RR77) R2E: Radiation To Electronics @ P7 The PCs will be re-located in the Tunnel (TZ76) → semi-horizontal underground links P7L P7R Betatron cleaning Insertion DQR IP7 Q4 Q5D3Q6 DFBM DFBA Q11, Q10…Q7 IP 6 D4 4.5 K 8.75 m  1 m RR 73  22 m To TZ76 PC From A. Ballarino - CERN 17

18. Leads and Power Converters ~ 250 m R2E: Radiation To Electronics @ P7 L.Rossi @ LARP CM1616 May 2011 Integration studies by Y. Muttoni From A. Ballarino - CERN 18

19. L.Rossi @ LARP CM1616 May 2011 UJ 13RR 13 IP1 Q3,Q2,Q1 DFBXD1Q4,D2Q5Q6 DFBL DFBA Q11, Q10…Q7 IP 8 TAS TAN 4.5 K 1.9 K  12 m  3 m  3.6 m To the surface IR Upgrade : HL-LHC Project From A. Ballarino - CERN 19

20. CERN-Fermilab collaboration on 11 T 2in1 LHC dipole LHC collimation system upgrade. –11 T 11-m long twin-aperture Nb 3 Sn dipoles compatible with the LHC lattice and major systems can provide the required space for cold collimators additional design constrains Space in the LHC lattice for different insertion devices –dynamic collimators, correctors, instrumentation, etc. L.Rossi @ LARP CM1616 May 2011 20

21. Single-bore Demonstrator Challenges: aperture, length, B max, W, schedule 16 May 2011L.Rossi @ LARP CM16 From A. Zlobin @Fermi-CERN CM1 21

22. Twin-bore Demonstrator Challenges: 2-in-1 horizontal configuration, aperture, aperture separation, B max, length, schedule 16 May 2011L.Rossi @ LARP CM16 From A. Zlobin @Fermi-CERN CM1 22

23. Long Range Beam – Beam Compensation Tests at RHIC and SPS indicate that a wire carrying a DC current can be used to compensate long-range beam-beam effects Challenges for such a system in the LHC – Machine protection issues for a wire which is positioned at less than 12 sigma to the beam – Accurate positioning of the wire – Cooling of a few mm 2 wire carrying up to 200A The current plan is to test such a system as soon as possible in the LHC – Proposal to base the system on a collimator design Profits from collimator controls & interlocks Integrated BPMs would allow precise positioning Water cooling already integrated in collimator design – Infrastructure for 2 such systems (Pts 1 & 5) to be prepared during Long Shutdown 1. – Installation either in LS1 or in subsequent winter technical stops R. Jones - CERN

24. HL-LHC & Beam Instrumentation BLM System – Investigations underway to integrate BLMs into the triplet cold mass Need to be close to the beam-pipe to distinguish between beam loss and collision debris Several technologies being looked into for operation at 2-5K – Despite using many rad-tolerant components the current BLM electronics needs to be distanced from the detectors in high radiation areas (collimation, triplet, DS) Requires long cables which increases noise For 7TeV operation this is already close to the quench limit ASIC design being studied to allow front-end electronics next to the detector Increase in Bunch Intensity – Many systems, including the BPM system, may require upgrade of electronics to be able to cope with these higher intensities. R. Jones - CERN

25. HL-LHC management 16 May 2011L.Rossi @ LARP CM1625

26. Installation PDR preparation m Choice TDR Approval Construction 20112013201420152021 FP7 DESIGN STUDY HiLumi EU FP7 Design Study 16 May 2011L.Rossi @ LARP CM16 End of year 26

27. Large participation application 25 Nov 2010 16 May 2011L.Rossi @ LARP CM1627

28. HiLumi is the focal point of 20 years of converging International collaboration The collaboration wiht US on LHC upgrade started during the construction of LHC. DOE programs are fundamental for LHC upgrades. EU programs have been instrumental in federating all EU efforts With Hi-Lumi the coordination makes a step further: from coordinated R&D to a common project CERN is not anymore the unique owner, rather is the motor and cathalizer of a wider effort. Managed like a large detector collaboration (with CERN in special position as operator of LHC). 16 May 2011L.Rossi @ LARP CM1628

29. Budget FP7 HiLumi 16 May 2011L.Rossi @ LARP CM16 Waiving effect CERN waives all technical works: LHC is core program. Only kept the CERN cost for managem. 50% 85% of CERN gen. mngt Only EU research area N.1/67 Score 15/15 4.9 M€ 29

30. Budget cont. 16 May 2011L.Rossi @ LARP CM16 Personnel for HiLumi by WP 1.Manag and Tech. Coord. (6%) 2.Acc. Physics and beam 3.Magnets for IR 4.Crab Cavities 5.Collimators 6.Sc links Estimated cost for the the whole HL-LHC over 10 years in M€ Precise cost evaluation by end 2011 30

31. In-Kind contributions: targets Profiting of LARP – 200 M$ from USA (US accounting) 5 G¥ (50 MCHF) from Japan Others? – Member States? Difficult or impossible? CH and FR are the obvious candidates Other MSs (or Labs) with specific interest or exchange of help we give them – Non MSs: we need to think wide… 16 May 2011L.Rossi @ LARP CM1631

32. conclusions 16 May 2011L.Rossi @ LARP CM1632