1. The HiLumi LHC Design Study is included in the High Luminosity LHC project and is partly funded by the European Commission within the Framework Programme 7 Capacities Specific Programme, Grant Agreement 284404. HL-LHC and (V)HE-LHC accelerator designs and plans Lucio Rossi CERN @ CLIC workshop, 28 January 2013

2. Content Recap of the HL-LHC project Scope Technology Plan HE-LHC Scope Technology VE-LHC variant Plan 2 28Jan2013

3. 3 Two Reasons for upgrade: Performance & Technical (Consolidation) Shut down to fix interconnects and overcome energy limitation (LHC incident of Sept 2008) and R2E Shut down to overcome beam intensity limitation (Injectors, collimation and more…) Full upgrade 28Jan2013

4. 4 Final goal : 3000 fb -1 by 2030’s… 5 10 34 levelled lumi (25 10 34 virtual peak lumi) 140 pile up (average) 3 fb-1 per day 60% of efficiency 250 fb-1 /year 300 fb-1/year as «ultimate» 5 10 34 levelled lumi (25 10 34 virtual peak lumi) 140 pile up (average) 3 fb-1 per day 60% of efficiency 250 fb-1 /year 300 fb-1/year as «ultimate» Full project Just continue improving performance through vigorous consolidation 28Jan2013

5. 5 Official Beam Parameters (see PLC by O.Bruning) Parameternominal 25ns50ns N1.15E+112.2E+113.5E+11 nbnb 2808 1404 beam current [A]0.581.120.89 x-ing angle [  rad] 300590 beam separation [  ] 1012.511.4  * [m] 0.550.15  n [  m] 3.752.53.0  L [eVs] 2.512.5 energy spread1.20E-04 bunch length [m]7.50E-02 IBS horizontal [h]80 -> 10620.020.7 IBS longitudinal [h]61 -> 6015.813.2 Piwinski parameter0.683.12.9 geom. reduction0.830.350.33 beam-beam / IP3.10E-033.9E-035.0E-03 Peak Luminosity1 10 34 7.4 10 34 8.5 10 34 Virtual Luminosity1.2 10 34 21 10 34 26 10 34 (Leveled to 5 10 34 cm -2 s -1 and 2.5 10 34 cm -2 s -1 ) Events / crossing (peak & leveled L) 19210475140 6.2 10 14 and 4.9 10 14 p/beam  sufficient room for leveling (with Crab Cavities) Virtual luminosity (25ns) of L = 7.4 / 0.35 10 34 cm -2 s -1 = 21 10 34 cm -2 s -1 (‘k’ = 5) Virtual luminosity (50ns) of L = 8.5 / 0.33 10 34 cm -2 s -1 = 26 10 34 cm -2 s -1 (‘k’ = 10) 28 28Jan2013

6. 6 1.2 km of new equipment in the LHC… 6.5 kW@4.5K cryoplant 2 x 18 kW @4.5K cryoplants for IRs 28Jan2013

7. 7 Technical Progress (incomplete …) - 2 WP3 LARP: HQ (1m-120 mm) and LQ3 (3.6 m -90 mm), very positive. Aperture 150 mm, 4.5+4.5 m long, W-shielded, more rad-dam limited than heat depo limited, new plan for LARP+CERN EU (CEA, INFN)+ JP Target: 200 T/m gradient at 1.9 K 3.3 m coils 90 mm aperture LQS03: 208 T/m at 4.6 K 210 T/m at 1.9 K 1 st quench: 86% s.s. limit HQ: 120 mm; 12 T passed LQS03: 208 T/m at 4.6 K 210 T/m at 1.9 K 1 st quench: 86% s.s. limit HQ: 120 mm; 12 T passed 28Jan2013

8. 8 Technical Progress (incomplete …) - 3 WP4 First CC (from UK) arrived at CERN, first test done in Nov 2012! ODU-SLAC CC also very near, BNL under way Interest from Fermilab for cryomodule design and proto From virtual to actual reality! 28Jan2013

9. 9 HiLumi: Two branches (with overlap) PIC - Performance Improving Consolidation upgrade (  1000 fb -1 ) IR quad change (rad. Damage, enhanced cooling) Cryogenics (P4, IP4,IP5) separation Arc -RF and IR(?) Enhanced Collimation (11T?) SC links (in part) and rad. Mitigation (ALARA) QPS and Machine Prot. Kickers Interlock system FP- Full Performance upgrade (3000 fb -1 ) Crab Cavities HB feedback system (SPS) Advanced collimation systems E-lens (?) SC links (all) R2E and remote handling for 3000 fb -1 28Jan2013

10. 10 Preliminary budget estimate 28Jan2013

11. 11 What SC can offer more to accelrators? 28Jan2013

12. LRossi@CLIC 12

13. 13 Parameters list of LHC upgrades (O. Dominguez and F. Zimmermann) 28Jan2013

14. 14 28Jan2013 Need to be addressed

15. Technology: dipoles vs solenoids in time, a comparison Factor 2 due to Coil «efficiency» and to force-stress management Factor 2 due to Coil «efficiency» and to force-stress management BNL LBNL CERN UT LBNL Use of HTS 28Jan2013 15

16. Main dipoles: waht is needed? What has been achieved? 28Jan2013 LRossi@CLIC 16 Looking at performance offered by practical SC, considering tunnel size and basic engineering (forces, stresses, energy) the practical limits is around 20 T. Such a challenge is similar to a 40 T solenoid (  -C) Nb-Ti operating dipoles; Nb3Sn block test dipoles Nb3Sn cos test dipoles LBNL, with large bore Spring 2013 LBNL, with large bore Spring 2013

17. The « new » materials 1 – Nb3Sn Recent 23.4 T (1 GHz) NMR Magnet for spectroscopy in Nb 3 Sn (and Nb-Ti). 15- 20 tons/year for NMR and HF solenoids. Experimental MRI is taking off ITER: 500 t in 2010-2015! It is comparable to LHC! HEP ITD (Internal Tin Diffusion): High Jc., 3xJc ITER Large filament (50 µm), large coupling current... Cost is 5 times LHC Nb-Ti 28Jan2013 LRossi@CLIC 17 0.7 mm, 108/127 stack RRP from Oxford OST 1 mm, 192 tubes PIT from Bruker EAS

18. The « new » materials: HTS Bi-2212 DOE program 2009-11 in USA let to a factor 2 gain. We need another 50% and more uniformity, eliminating porosity and leakage 28Jan2013 LRossi@CLIC 18 Round wire, isotropous and suitable to cabling! HEP only users (good < 20K and for compact cable) Big issue: very low strain resistance, brittle Production ~ 0, cost ~ 2-5 times Nb3Sn (Ag stabilized)

19. The « new » materials: HTS YBCO 28Jan2013 LRossi@CLIC 19 Tape of 0.1-0.2 mm x 4-10 mm : difficult for compact (>85%) cables Current is EXCELENT but serious issue is the anisotropy; >90% of world effort on HTS are on YBCO! Great synergy with all community Cost : today is 10 times Nb 3 Sn, target is same price: components not expensive, process difficult to be industrialize at low cost FP7 Eucard is developing EU Ybco

20. New (old) approach to cabling suitable for tapes 28Jan2013 LRossi@CLIC 20 An old type of cabling (Roebel) suitable for tapes has been recently rivisited (Karlsruhe, New Research Industry NZ) Here a first 2 m long test cable done at CERN

21. Magnet shapes (field optimization & structure) 28Jan2013 LRossi@CLIC 21 Cos Coil Block Coil Canted Solenoid Coil Hybrid Cos Block Coil P. McIntyre S. Caspi

22. First consistent cross section, 2010 WG and Malta (fits our tunnel) 28Jan2013 LRossi@CLIC 22 Magnet design: 40 mm bore (depends on injection energy: > 1 Tev) Very challenging but feasable: 300 mm inter-beam; anticoils to reduce flux Approximately 2.5 times more SC than LHC: 3000 tonnes! Multiple powering in the same magnet for FQ (and more sectioning for energy) Certainly only a first attempt: cos and other shapes will be also investigated Magnet design: 40 mm bore (depends on injection energy: > 1 Tev) Very challenging but feasable: 300 mm inter-beam; anticoils to reduce flux Approximately 2.5 times more SC than LHC: 3000 tonnes! Multiple powering in the same magnet for FQ (and more sectioning for energy) Certainly only a first attempt: cos and other shapes will be also investigated L. Rossi and E. Todesco

23. The EU program The chance for HTS Last FP7 call in Nov2011: EuCARD2 (2013-16) Approved; under negotiation for signature WP-10Future Magnets Assessment of YBCO and Bi-2212 for HE-LHC Development of 10 kA class HTS compact cable Prototype of a 5 T real accelerator quality magnet Test the coil in a 13-15 T background field to proof 18-20 T principle with 10 kA HTS conductor. 28Jan2013 LRossi@CLIC 23

24. LHC, the construction timeline: a 25 year old project 28Jan2013 LRossi@CLIC 24

25. What is the possibile for HE-LHC? 28Jan2013 LRossi@CLIC 25 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 US 16 T small dipole EuCARD 13 T large dipole+ 18 T small insert US 13 T Quads FP7-HiLumi US NbSn-HTS development 15-20 T dip final proto & Industrialization Final delivery Magnets HE-LHC HE-LHC start-up HE-LHC preliminary study HTS for HE-LHC: yes.or.no LARP 11 T long quad EuCARD R&D Industry contracts, start constrution US basic programs and LARP R&D EU FP6-CARE-NED EuCARD2 full bore dipole HTS 15-20 T R&D dipole models and prototypes Full profit of the HiLumi program

26. HE-LHC cost: rough evalution based on LHC LHC (machine): about 3 BCHF, 1.7 BCHF for the magnet system, HE-LHC: The non-magnet is  same 1.5 BCHF Magnet System Nb 3 Sn (26 TeV c.o.m.) :  3.5 BCHF (for a total of 5 BCHF for the whole machine) Magnet System HTS (33 TeV c.o.m) :  5 BCHF (for a total of 6.5 BCHF for the whole machine) The above cost are for a new machine, like LHC. Economy could be made because Cryo and other systems need only renovation; however one should consider the cost of LHC removal) 28Jan2013 LRossi@CLIC 26

27. Other important issues (among many …) Synchrotron radiation 15 to 30 times! The best is to use a window given by vacuum stability at around 50-60 K (gain a factor 15 in cryopower removal!) First study on beam impedance seems positive but to be verified carefully Use of HTS coating on beam screen? Beam in & out Both injection and beam dump region are constraints. Ideally one would need twice stronger kickers Beam dumps seems feasable by increasing rise time from 3 to 5  s Injection would strongly benefit form stronger kickers otherwise a new lay-out is needed (different with or wihtout experiments) 28Jan2013 LRossi@CLIC 27

28. Beyond Linac4: possible SC SPS? 28Jan2013 LRossi@CLIC 28 HE-LHC Linac4 SPS+ New injectors optimization

29. Alternate scenarios for Injectors Keeping SPS (and its transfer lines: 6 km!): Low Energy Ring in LHC tunnel with superferric Pipetron magnets (W. Foster). Work done by Fermilab (H. Piekarz), see Malta workshop proc. cost of LER is lower than SC-SPS option. Integration is difficult but no show-stoppers 28Jan2013 LRossi@CLIC 29

30. Steps for Potential Large Projects beyond the LHC infrastructure: the 47-80 km long ring tunnel Several proposals exist for major projects at CERN to complement / succeed the LHC CLIC, HE-LHC, TLEP, LHeC etc… Steps to undertake before starting construction planning Determine requirements for the project Create basic civil engineering drawings Perform siting studies Perform feasibility studies to determine optimal location Optimal is most feasible from civil engineering point of view Select optimal location Optimize civil engineering drawings according to identified optimal location J. Osborne 28Jan2013 30

31. Steps for Potential Projects Steps to undertake before starting construction planning Determine requirements for the project Depends on physics requirements Basic civil engineering drawings Layout machine, dimensions etc. Siting studies Identify several potential locations for the project based on Layout, infrastructure requirements, accessibility etc. “Jura” 80km “Lakeside” 80km “Lakeside” 47km LHC MolasseLimestone Salève Mountain Jura Mountains Lake Geneva Example: potential locations 80km tunnel project J. Osborne 28Jan2013 31

32. Steps for Potential Projects Steps to undertake before starting construction planning Perform feasibility studies to determine optimal location Optimal is most feasible from civil engineering point of view Feasibility studies include: Geotechnical challenges: identification, risk analysis and studies for possible solutions Environmental impacts: identification of potential impacts, check French and Swiss regulations This is not the Environmental Impact Assessment study itself, but a preliminary study Hazard Water Ingress Faulting Expansive Anhydrite Ground Stress Degree of support Effect on Urban Areas Technical Risk Total Option Lake 47km121113110 Lake 80km221221212 Jura 80km333331319 Low High Feasibility Example: geotechnical and environmental feasibility matrix J. Osborne 28Jan2013 32

33. Steps for Potential Projects Steps to undertake before starting construction planning Feasibility studies include: Geotechnical challenges: identification, risk analysis and studies for possible solutions Environmental impacts: identification of potential impacts, check French and Swiss regulations Tunneling & Construction: identify challenges, preferred construction methodologies etc. Costs: perform a preliminary costing studies Example excavation techniques: ‘Cut and Cover’ Tunnel Boring Machine Special works such as ‘groundfreezing’ J. Osborne 28Jan2013 33

34. Steps for Potential Projects Steps to undertake before starting construction planning Select optimal site Optimize civil engineering drawings according to identified optimal location Example: ILC CE optimized drawings J. Osborne 28Jan2013 34

35. Injection scheme: SC-SPS  VHE-LHC is to expensive (50 MW power for cryo) 28Jan2013 35

36. Possible arrangement in VHE-LHC tunnel From H. Piekarz Malta Prooc. Pag. 101 30 mm V gap 50 mm H gap Bin = 0.5 T Bextr = 1.5 T 28Jan2013 36

37. Possible VHE-LHC with a LER suitable also for e + -e - collision (and VLHeC) – 100 MW sr Advantage: cheap like resistive magnets Central gap could be shortcircuited Magnet separated: provides electron 50 GeV and proton 5 TeV/beam Limited cryopower (HTS) in shadow of SCRF cavities Sc cables developed already for SC links (HiLumi) and power application. SR taken at 300 K: is possible??? Advantage: cheap like resistive magnets Central gap could be shortcircuited Magnet separated: provides electron 50 GeV and proton 5 TeV/beam Limited cryopower (HTS) in shadow of SCRF cavities Sc cables developed already for SC links (HiLumi) and power application. SR taken at 300 K: is possible??? 28Jan2013 37

38. 38 In principle a plan for all (?) is possible (for LHC exploitation): 2018-2020 is critical time According to Physics needs, the 80 km tunnel can: Be alternative to HE-LHC Or complementary to HE-LHC Accomodating at negligible extra-cost TLEP and VLHeC (this last at 50GeV/5TeV and 350 GeV/50-100 TeV) Skipping TLEP/VLHeC may shorten 5-10 years VHE-LHC 28Jan2013

39. The HiLumi LHC Design Study is included in the High Luminosity LHC project and is partly funded by the European Commission within the Framework Programme 7 Capacities Specific Programme, Grant Agreement 284404. HL-LHC is the test bed (on real scale) of new advanced technology: 11T and 13 T Magnets, CCs, new collimation concepts, new diagnostics, SC Links, all working on a  1 GJ beam… (vacuum, cryogenics, kickers, protections…) Synergy with CLIC? HL-LHC is the test bed (on real scale) of new advanced technology: 11T and 13 T Magnets, CCs, new collimation concepts, new diagnostics, SC Links, all working on a  1 GJ beam… (vacuum, cryogenics, kickers, protections…) Synergy with CLIC? For the HE-LHC today is the right moment to … invent … but the challenge in the next 6-8 years is to make a coherent R&D and Study with common tools of evaluation and same approach to common systems, infrastructure, power. Study on VHE-LHC not yet started beyond initial concept.