HiRadMat Test Facility Presentation requested by S. Myers and P. Collier in November 2008 discussion. Will present technical solutions considered and recommend preferred concept. Will present preliminary budget estimates. Before investing more work, we want to inform management, collect feedback and ask for endorsement of our direction. Detailed technical review as part of phase II project review in March/April 2009. Introduction and Motivation (R. Assmann) Transfer Line (C. Hessler) Experimental Area (I. Efthymiopoulos) Radiation Aspects (H. Vincke) Round-Table Discussion R. Assmann, 26.1.2009

Experimental area, ex-perimental infrastruc-ture, handling equipment Coordination Safety R. Assmann Minutes: C. Hessler Experimental area, ex-perimental infrastruc-ture, handling equipment technical specification, design, procurement, installation, commissioning I. Efthymiopoulos et al Radiation impact H. Vincke DG/SC Beam dump, windows, energy deposition and radiation estimates technical specification, design, procurement SLAC (tbc) Possibly later: Contribution of other equipment (vacuum, magnets, instrumentation, power supplies, experimental area…) Beam line up to experiment, accelerator infrastructure: functional and technical specification, design, procurement, installation, commissioning M. Meddahi C. Hessler B. Goddard EN/EMF User specification R. Assmann A. Bertarelli B. Goddard R. Schmidt collaborators TE/ABT Boxes connect to many different equipment groups. See subsequent presentations! Design office contact A. Bertarelli BE/EN/TE  weekly 1h meeting with additional members… EN/MME R. Assmann, 26.1.2009

R. Assmann, 26.1.2009

Why? LHC beam: many orders of magnitudes above the damage thresholds of most robust materials. Planned intensity upgrades toughen the situation: Necessary to do beam tests of near-beam components before installation into the LHC! LHC is not a test bed! Thermal shock waves damage materials much below melting point! See beam damage found in TT40 tests of TCS collimator: 60 deg C shock heating (factor 18 below Cu melting point) gave 0.2 mm plastic deformation. Measured and fixed for series production. Most close-beam devices of the LHC have not been tested with beam: copper collimators, tungsten collimators, boron nitride injection protection (TDI), TCDQ, dump blocks, windows, ... Thermal shock wave effects on SC magnets at cryo temperatures not measured. Test facility (HiRadMat) included in the project proposal for phase II collimation: collimation upgrades cannot proceed without such a test bed. Test facility HiRadMat reviewed in WG for irradiation facilities. Need confirmed in December 08 memo from L. Linssen et al. To be useful, need 450 GeV LHC-type beam, from pilot to 288 nominal bunches! Controllable spot size to change power density (beta, emittance effect). R. Assmann, 26.1.2009

Where? CFC collimators tested in 2004 and 2007 in TT40! Why not repeat it there or in LHC? TI2 and TI8 lines are now in beam operation (LHC ring will be): Avoid interferences: vacuum interventions, access restrictions due to irradi-ation (higher levels with high Z materials), damage to BI from showers, … Exclude risks: contamination internal and external to vacuum, water leak into vacuum, high Z materials can “explode”, … Risks of serious damage not excluded: Many collimators (e.g. phase II coll. from SLAC) have lower design robustness, damage (benign!?) is expected. Reason why phase I metallic collimators and absorbers were not tested in TT40. Space constraints: TT40 space is very limited and can only fit reduced length standard collimators. No easy possibility to generate more space. Reason why longer absorbers (TDI, TCDQ) could not be tested in TT40. Lack of infrastructure: Higher risk or cryo tests require infrastructure (ventilation, crane, cryo, …) that is not available in TT40 and could not be installed easily.  Early on focus to identify area where foreseen tests can be performed without any risk for LHC and CNGS operation: TT60, WANF area identified by Brennan… R. Assmann, 26.1.2009

When? Our goal: Test facility ready for first prototype tests in autumn 2010! This would allow the following scenario for collimation phase II: 2010 – HiRadMat operational in autumn 2010. First generation prototypes (CERN/SLAC) tested in HiRadMat. 2011 – Tested prototypes disassembled and analyzed. Construction of second generation prototype. Include lessons from LHC operation (phase I). 2012 – Beam test of second generation phase II design in LHC and/or HiRadMat (depending on maturity of design). Decision on phase II choices. 2013 – Phase II production. 2014 – Readiness of phase II collimation for LHC operation. Delays in HiRadMat will delay the later progress! This is why we push! We can gain time when no second generation prototype is required! Note: Delay would also be a problem for SLAC/LARP which wants to deliver a tested and mature design, requiring prior beam tests at CERN! R. Assmann, 26.1.2009

Last Introductory Slide Now I pass on to the colleagues who helped to work out a technical solution over the last 6 months! More work done but we want to provide an overview for you to assess. This is a conceptual design solution. Not all technical details have been worked out. This would come, once our direction is endorsed. After the three short presentations I will wrap up the proposal and then we should discuss the future direction. R. Assmann, 26.1.2009