1. Name Event Date Name Event Date 1 CERN LHC Phase-II Upgrade Scenarios We acknowledge the support of the European Community-Research Infrastructure Activity under the FP6 "Structuring the European Research Area" programme (CARE, contract number RII3-CT-2003-506395) W. Scandale & F. ZimmermannNovember 2008 W. Scandale, F. Zimmermann CERN

2. outline motivation & staged approach upgrade scenarios & luminosity levelling injector upgrade & schedule crab cavities complementary advanced schemes - LR + HO beam-beam compensation, e-cloud mitigation, crystal collimation, cooling, crab waists,… strategy for “phase 2”

4. Three Strong Reasons for LHC Upgrade J. Strait 2003 1) after few years, statistical error hardly decreases 2) radiation damage limit of IR quadrupoles (~700 fb -1 ) reached by ~2016 = → time for an upgrade! 3) extending physics potential! (A. de Roeck et al) hypothetical luminosity evolution

5. staged approach to LHC upgrade “phase 1” 2013: new triplets, D1, TAS,  *=0.25 m in IP1 & 5, reliable LHC operation at ~2-3x luminosity; beam from new Linac4 “phase 2” 2017: target luminosity 10x nominal, possibly Nb 3 Sn triplet &  *~0.15 m complementary measures 2010-2017: e.g. long-range beam-beam compensation, crab cavities, new/upgraded injectors, advanced collimators, coherent e- cooling??, e- lenses?? longer term (2020?): energy upgrade, LHeC,… phase-2 might be just phase 1 plus complementary measures + injector upgrade

7. Name Event Date Name Event Date7 LHC phase-2 upgrade paths for IP1 & 5 ultimate beam (1.7x10 11 p’s/bunch, 25 ns spacing),  * ~10 cm ultimate beam (1.7x10 11 p’s/bunch, 25 ns spacing),  * ~10 cm early-separation dipoles in side detectors, crab cavities early-separation dipoles in side detectors, crab cavities → hardware inside ATLAS & CMS detectors, first hadron crab cavities; off-  stronger triplet magnets D0 dipole small-angle crab cavity J.-P. Koutchouk early separation (ES) stronger triplet magnets small-angle crab cavity ultimate LHC beam (1.7x10 11 p’s/bunch, 25 ns spacing) ultimate LHC beam (1.7x10 11 p’s/bunch, 25 ns spacing)  * ~10 cm  * ~10 cm crab cavities with 60% higher voltage crab cavities with 60% higher voltage → first hadron crab cavities, off-  -beat L. Evans, W. Scandale, F. Zimmermann full crab crossing (FCC) wire compensator larger-aperture triplet magnets 50 ns spacing, longer & more intense bunches (5x10 11 p’s/bunch) 50 ns spacing, longer & more intense bunches (5x10 11 p’s/bunch)  *~25 cm, no elements inside detectors  *~25 cm, no elements inside detectors long-range beam-beam wire compensation long-range beam-beam wire compensation → novel operating regime for hadron colliders, beam generation F. Ruggiero, W. Scandale. F. Zimmermann large Piwinski angle (LPA) stronger triplet magnets ultimate LHC beam (1.7x10 11 p’s/bunch, 25 ns spacing) ultimate LHC beam (1.7x10 11 p’s/bunch, 25 ns spacing)  * ~10 cm  * ~10 cm smaller transverse emittance smaller transverse emittance → constraint on new injectors, off-  -beat R. Garoby low emittance (LE)

8. Name Event Date Name Event Date8 basic idea: reduce  to compensate for larger Piwinski angle and get the full benefit of IR upgrade; at the same time the smaller emittance relaxes aperture constraints → possible implications for the injection design “LE”: rationale for lower emittance (R. Garoby); fundamental equations of LHC performance

9. Name Event Date Name Event Date9 2808 bunches with 7.55 cm length, ultimate bunch intensity 1.7x10 11, 9.5  sep. [10 34 cm -2 s -1 ]  [  m]  *=0.1 m  *=0.5 m  *=0.25 m 5 h turnaround  Q tot  [  m]  *=0.1 m  *=0.5 m  *=0.25 m and  Q vs. emittance ultimate Gaussian bunches, 25 ns [10 34 cm -2 s -1 ]  [  m]  *=0.1 m  *=0.5 m  *=0.25 m 5 h turnaround  Q tot  *=0.1 m  *=0.5 m  *=0.25 m  [  m] 1404 bunches with 41 cm full length, bunch intensity 4.9x10 11, 8.5  sep. long flat “LPA” bunches, 50 ns

10. Name Event Date Name Event Date10 luminosity gain from smaller emittance for Gaussian ultimate bunches and  *~0.1-0.25 m, emittance reduction from 3.75 to 2 micron yields ~40-50% higher integrated luminosity; a smaller emittance reduction to 2.6 micron gives ~22-27% av. luminosity increase for long flat bunches and  *~0.25, emittance can be reduced only to 3 micron (tune shift limit), and the luminosity gain here is 13% for comparison the luminosity gain from crab cavities would be ~90% for  *~0.1 m

11. parametersymbolnominalultimateESFCCLELPA transverse emittance  [  m] 3.75 1.03.75 protons per bunchN b [10 11 ] 1.15 1.7 4.9 bunch spacing  t [ns] 25 50 beam currentI [A] 0.58 0.86 0..861.22 longitudinal profile Gauss Flat rms bunch length  z [cm] 7.55 11.8 beta* at IP1&5  [m] 0.55 0.50.08 0.10.25 full crossing angle  c [  rad] 285 31500311381 Piwinski parameter  c  z /(2*  x *) 0.64 0.75003.22.0 geometric reduction 1.0 0.86 0.300.99 peak luminosityL [10 34 cm -2 s -1 ] 1 2.315.5 16.310.7 peak events per #ing 19 44294 309403 initial lumi lifetime  L [h] 22 142.2 2.04.5 effective luminosity (T turnaround =10 h) L eff [10 34 cm -2 s -1 ] 0.46 0.912.4 2.5 T run,opt [h] 21.2 17.06.6 6.49.5 effective luminosity (T turnaround =5 h) L eff [10 34 cm -2 s -1 ] 0.56 1.153.6 3.73.5 T run,opt [h] 15.0 12.04.6 4.56.7 e-c heat SEY=1.4(1.3)P [W/m] 1.1 (0.4) 1.04(0.6)1.0 (0.6) 0.4 (0.1) SR heat load 4.6-20 KP SR [W/m] 0.17 0.25 0.36 image current heatP IC [W/m] 0.15 0.33 0.78 gas-s. 100 h (10 h)  b P gas [W/m] 0.04 (0.4) 0.06 (0.6)0.06 (0.56) 0.09 (0.9) extent luminous region  l [cm] 4.54.33.7 1.55.3 comment nominalultimateD0 + crab crabwire comp.

12. Name Event Date Name Event Date12 average luminosity vs  * assuming 5 h turnaround

13. Name Event Date Name Event Date13 2008 progress with all 4 scenarios ES: 2008 SPS beam studies; beam-beam working meeting August 2008; detailed design & discussion with experiments; → G. Sterbini, J.-P. Koutchouk FCC:two mini-workshops, global collaboration, joint studies with KEKB team; staged approach → R. Calaga LPA: 2008 simulations & PS beam study → C. Bhat LE: 2008 proposal (R. Garoby); parameter study → discussion?!

14. Name Event Date Name Event Date14 luminosity leveling ES or FCC LPA average luminosity initial luminosity peak may not be useful for physics (set up & tuning?) experiments prefer ~constant luminosity, less pile up at start of run, higher luminosity at end ES, or FCC: dynamic  squeeze, or dynamic  change (either IP angle bumps or varying crab voltage); LE:  or  change; LPA: dynamic  squeeze, or dynamic change of bunch length how can we achieve this? LE

15. Name Event Date Name Event Date15 25 ns spacing 50 ns spacing IP1& 5 event pile up for 25 & 50-ns spacing w/o leveling ES, EL or FCC LPA

16. LHC Upgrade Beam Parameters, Frank ZimmermannPAF/POFPA Meeting 20 November 2006 run time & average luminosity w/o levelingwith leveling luminosity evolution beam current evolution optimum run time average luminosity

17. LHC Upgrade Beam Parameters, Frank ZimmermannPAF/POFPA Meeting 20 November 2006 ES, low  *, with leveling LPA, long bunches, with leveling events/crossing 300 run time N/A2.5 h av. luminosityN/A2.6x10 34 s -1 cm -2 events/crossing 150 run time 2.5 h14.8 h av. luminosity2.6x10 34 s -1 cm -2 2.9x10 34 s -1 cm -2 events/crossing 75 run time 9.9 h26.4 h av. luminosity2.6x10 34 s -1 cm -2 1.7x10 34 s -1 cm -2 assuming 5 h turn-around time examples

18. 50-ns upgrade with 25-ns collisions in LHCb upgrade bunch structures 25 ns 50 ns nominal 25 ns ultimate & 25-ns upgrade (ES & FCC) 50-ns upgrade (LPA), no collisions in LHCb! 50 ns 25 ns

19. Name Event Date Name Event Date 19 CERN W. Scandale & F. ZimmermannHHH, CARE Meeting, CERN, 17.09. 2008 experimenters’ choice (LHCC July 2008) no accelerator components inside detector lowest possible event pile up possibility of easy luminosity levelling → full crab crossing upgrade → and/or low-emittance upgrade?

21. Name Event Date Name Event Date21 LHC injector upgrade Reasons: need for reliability: need for reliability: accelerators are old [Linac2: 1978, PSB: 1975, PS: 1959, SPS: 1976] accelerators are old [Linac2: 1978, PSB: 1975, PS: 1959, SPS: 1976] they operate far from their design parameters and close to hardware limits they operate far from their design parameters and close to hardware limits the infrastructure has suffered from the concentration of resources on LHC during the past 10 years the infrastructure has suffered from the concentration of resources on LHC during the past 10 years need for better beam characteristics need for better beam characteristics Roland Garoby, LHCC 1July ‘08

22. Name Event Date Name Event Date22 PSB SPS SPS+ Linac4 ( LP)SPL PS LHC / SLHC DLHC Output energy 160 MeV 1.4 GeV 4 GeV 26 GeV 50 GeV 450 GeV 1 TeV 7 TeV ~ 14 TeV Linac2 50 MeV (LP)SPL: (Low Power) Superconducting Proton Linac (4-5 GeV) PS2: High Energy PS (~ 5 to 50 GeV – 0.3 Hz) SPS+: Superconducting SPS (50 to1000 GeV) SLHC: “Superluminosity” LHC (up to 10 35 cm -2 s -1 ) DLHC: “Double energy” LHC (1 to ~14 TeV) Proton flux / Beam power present and future injectors PS2 Roland Garoby, LHCC 1July ‘08

23. layout of the new injectors SPS PS2 SPL Linac4 PS R. Garoby, CARE-HHH BEAM07, October’07; L. Evans, LHCC, 20 Feb ‘08

24. R. Garoby, LHCC 1 July 2008 injector upgrade schedule synchronized with LHC IR upgrades LHC IR phase 1 LHC IR phase 2

25. Collimation phase 2 Linac4 + IR upgrade phase 1 New injectors + IR upgrade phase 2 ATLAS will need ~18 months shutdown goal for ATLAS Upgrade: 3000 fb -1 recorded cope with ~400 pile-up events each BC M. Nessi, CARE-HHH LHC crab-cavity validation mini-workshop August 2008, R. Garoby, LHCC July 08

26. LHC Luminosity/Sensitivity with time 100 fb -1 /yr SHUTDOWN 1000 fb -1 /yr 200 fb -1 /yr 3000 300 30 10-20 fb -1 /yr First physics run: O(1fb -1 ) SUSY@1TeV SUSY@3TeV Z’@6TeV ADD X-dim@9TeV Compositeness@40TeV H(120GeV)   Higgs@200GeV F. Moortgat, A. De Roeck A. de Roeck, 2007

28. “Piwinski angle” luminosity reduction factor without crab cavity nominal LHC  c /2 effective beam size  →  /R  crab cavity motivation “LPA” upgrade “FCC” upgrade

29. CARE-HHH LHC Crab Cavity Validation Mini-Workshop, 21 August 2008 Bob Palmer invention 1988 crabbed beams in KEKB first use in operating ring collider 2007 LHC global crab LHC local crab global & local schemes considered for LHC  KEKB experience  R&D plan  phased approach: (1) prototype (2) “global” crab cavity test in IR4, (3) “local” crab cavities in IR1 & 5  EuCARD, US-LARP & international collaboration

30. 1. Beam-beam studies: a. K. Ohmi (KEK) - white noise - SS & WS simulations, BBSS code, scaling law with respect to noise correlation time, effect of RF curvature, luminosity estimates b. Y.-P. Sun, U. Dorda, R. Tomas (CERN); R. Calaga (BNL) – single particle dynamics, Sixtrack/MADX/BBTRACK codes WS simulations, footprints, luminosity, noise spectrum,… c. J. Qiang (LBNL), SS simulations, BeamBeam3D code 2. Collimation & impedance: a. Y.-P. Sun, R. Tomas, J. Barranco, F. Zimmermann (CERN); R. Calaga (BNL) – Sixtrack/Colltrack tracking, cleaning efficiency b. F. Zimmermann, E. Metral (CERN); R. Calaga (BNL),…: impedance estimates and HOM damping requirements 3. Operational scenarios: a. A. Morita (KEK); R. Calaga (BNL); R. Tomas, F. Zimmermann (CERN): crab ramping/detuning studies b. K. Oide et al (KEK): joined KEKB machine experiments & studies global crab-cavity simulation & theory effort

31. example: Yi-Peng Sun IP bunch shapedynamic aperture tracking for global 800-MHz crab cavity

32. another example: emittance growth due to crab up/down ramping with tune spreadw/o tune spread Akio Morita → no emittance dilution for ramp time > 10 turns → voltage ramping not a problem for Q loaded >10 6 Akio Morita

33. Name Event Date Name Event Date 33 tentative schedule for crab-cavity prototype & first beam tests schedule T. Linnecar, HHH Crab-Cavity Validation Workshop August 2008 local crab cavities together with IR phase-2 ~2017 ?

34.  beam-beam compensation  crab waist collision  electron-cloud mitigation  crystal collimation  cooling

35. long-range beam-beam compensation LR beam- beam in LHC prototype compensator in the SPS distance [mm] lifetime vs separation at various tunes G. Sterbini, J.-P. Koutchouk U. Dorda, et al, SPS MD August 2008 compensation efficiency with 2 wires

36. cryostat around cold beam pipe two-stage pulse tube cryocooler Ic (A) B (T) Ex-situ, 1.1 mm  MgB 2 wire (Columbus) MgB 2 conductor high-Tc s.c. LRBB compensator A.Ballarino, CARE-HHH mini-workshop, 28 August 2008

37. Name Event Date Name Event Date 37 electron lens use of e-lens as tune-spread compressor improves simulated LHC beam lifetime (phase to IP important) A.Valishev, CARE-HHH mini-workshop on beam-beam Compensation, 28 August 2008

38.  beam-beam compensation  crab waist collision  electron-cloud mitigation  crystal collimation  cooling

39. Name Event Date Name Event Date 39 crab-waist collisions crab-waist collisions K. Ohmi vertical focus moves through the beam horizontally

40. Name Event Date Name Event Date 40 “crab-waist” collisions at DAFNE (note: no crab cavities but sextupoles!) luminosity current product w/o crab waist with crab waist can we make use of crab waists at the LHC? C. Milardi

41. Name Event Date Name Event Date 41 crab waist in LHC? one example:  =3.5 in LPA option  y squeezed to  x /  =2.1cm (extreme!) → L increases (14/2.1) 1/2 =2.6 times →  y decreases and  x is small for LPA → “crab waist has a chance to work!” K. Ohmi CARE-HHH mini-workshop 28 August ‘08

42. Name Event Date Name Event Date 42 another use of “crab-waist”: push beam halo away from opposing beam at LR collisions K. Ohmi

43.  beam-beam compensation  crab waist collision  electron-cloud mitigation  crystal collimation  cooling

44. Humberto Maury Cuna, CINVESTAV, Mexico, FP7 EUROLUMI collaboration! e- heat load for 25 ns spacing “ultimate” ES/FCC upgrade nominal cooling capacity for 0.55 m  * SEY up to 1.4 OK with dedicated IR cryoplant

45. (longer flat bunches) Humberto Maury Cuna, CINVESTAV, Mexico, FP7 EUROLUMI collaboration! e- heat load for 50 ns spacing LPA upgrade need for dedicated IR cryoplant IRs SEY up to 1.5 OK

46. Name Event Date Name Event Date 46 Evaporation of metals in relatively high pressure of a rare gas produces very rough and porous films. Already mentioned in the literature, “gold black” has been produced and characterized. Gold black deposited by evaporation in Kr (0.5 mbar) e-cloud mitigation for PS2 & SPS upgrade; effort triggered by HHH ECL’2 workshop P. Chiggiato et al promising: graphite coating on black gold substrate no dependence on time of exposure to air

47. Space Plasma Environment and Spacecraft Charging incident and emitted currents that result in spacecraft charging ESA funded R&D I. Montero, HHH-APD ECM'08 (Electron Cloud Mitigation 2008) Secondary Electron Emission

48. synergies with satellite R&D D. Raboso (ESA/ESTEC), MULCOPIM’08

49. Micro-structured Gold Coating Aluminum alloy Nickel 10 μm Electroplatin g Ni + Ag Silver Sputtering deposition 2μm Au Chemical etching Sil ve r Gold Chemical Etching and Sputtering ESA funded SEY research (UAM & CSIC) CuO Nanowires Growth Gold-Coated Aluminum Particles Sputtering 5 nm Au Surface profile line scan Aluminum alloy substrate Sprinkled Al particles Gold-Coated Micrometrical Ceramic Particles Aluminum alloy substrate Sputtering 25 nm Au Indentation of micro-metrical ceramic particles I. Montero, HHH ECM’08 mini-workshop

50. ESA funded SEY research (UAM & CSIC) I. Montero, HHH ECM’08 mini-workshop Dispersed Micrometrical Magnetic Particles Gold-Coated Dispersed Nanometrical Alumina Particles Flat 50 nm Gold CuO Nanowires Growth Micro-structured Gold Coating Chemical Etching and Sputtering Methods Gold-Coated Micrometrical Alumina Particles Preliminary results!!

51.  beam-beam compensation  crab waist collision  electron-cloud mitigation  crystal collimation  cooling

52. Name Event Date Name Event Date 52 crystal collimation experiments in SPS North area since 2005 2008 result: crystal deflection of negative pions and muons parallel simulation effort approved experiment in SPS ring proper W. Scandale et al

53.  beam-beam compensation  crab waist collision  electron-cloud mitigation  crystal collimation  cooling

54. Name Event Date Name Event Date 54cooling lower beam emittance can compensate for luminosity loss due to large crossing angle [R. Garoby] may be provided by new injectors and/or by “coherent e- cooling” [V. Litvinenko] CeC proof-of- Principle experiment at RHIC in 2012 damping times in hours: promise of 1-hr damping time at 7 TeV!

56. Name Event Date Name Event Date 56 strategy for “phase 2” R&D program for larger-aperture higher-field magnets in parallel crab-cavity development and testing design, production & installation of wire compensator already in “phase 0” monitor complementary schemes, like crab waist, coherent e-cooling, e-lenses, crystal collimation; integrate them into upgrade plan when they become available validation generation method for long flat bunches identify main limitations of the real LHC LHC & injector machine studies to explore upgrade scenarios, e.g. LPA and LE close coordination with detector upgrades

57. generated tracks per crossing, p t > 1 GeV/c cut, i.e. all soft tracks removed! 10 35 cm -2 s -1 I. Osborne