1. RA CPM 21/2/03 1 Present Approach and Status R. Assmann for the LHC Collimation Team Problem: Al/Cu system would not resist irregular dumps (pre-trigger or asynchronous) and low beam lifetimes, even during early physics. Solution:Low Z material: More robust but longer. Progress: Sep 2001LHC Beam Cleaning Study Group Jan 2002Consensus to consider low Z material (impedance presented as non-critical) Jun 2002Consensus on detailed requirements First tolerances Oct 2002Project LHC Collimation, AB/ATB Jan 2003Full simulation chain: Beam – FLUKA – ANSYS Cleaning efficiency and optics with low Z Review of impedance, other constraints

2. RA CPM 21/2/03 2 Our strategy: Find the simplest solution that is compatible with the requirements of the nominal LHC. (Carbon?!) Concentrate most effort into advancing these simple solutions. Keep more complicated/less convenient concepts in mind as backup solutions. (Beryllium, Diamond, multi-layer structures, crystal collimation, renewable high-Z collimators, repairable high-Z collimators, tertiary collimators at the triplets, primary collimators covering the phase space, anti-kicker at dump …) Some “backup solutions” might help to relax operational tolerances or help for machine protection.

3. RA CPM 21/2/03 3 Feb 2003:Signs of convergence? (worst case shock beam impact) FLUKA: C seems best choice, better than Be higher Z is out of question 100  m higher-Z coating seems unfeasible Copper structure after 1 cm C seems OK ANSYS: Simple C a factor 2-3 too low in robustness (OK for first years of LHC, 1 bunch out of 3) Other forms (carbon-carbon) under study (better?). Lengths: 0.2 m and 1.0 m long C jaws OK for efficiency first preliminary optics re-match looks good Radiation: Peak activation lower (avoid remote handling) First detailed results for BLM response All based on our consensus on low Z.

4. RA CPM 21/2/03 4 AP worries for fundamental system design: Impedance: Reviewed in Jan 03. More details today… E-cloud: First discussion Jan 03. No estimate yet. SNS: TiN coating on all collimators Special solenoids in collimator locations Additional worries on operational, technical, engineering issues (not for now). Goal: Decide jaw design and material(s) in April 03. Fix fundamental constraints from impedance, local e-cloud as soon as possible! There are alternatives to low Z, but fundamental concept is changed.

5. RA CPM 21/2/03 5 RegionTypeOrientationMateri al NumberLengthSetting IR1TCL (Q5) XCu21.0 m 10.0  TASRoundCu?21.8 m 12.0  TCL (D2)XCu21.0 m 10.0  IR3TCPXAl10.2 m 8.0  TCSX, Y, XYCu60.5 m 9.3  IR5TCL (Q5) XCu21.0 m 10.0  TASRoundCu?21.8 m 12.0  TCL (D2)XCu21.0 m 10.0  IR6TCDQX (1 side)C19.5 m 10.0  IR7TCPX, Y, XYAl40.2 m 6.0  TCSX, Y, XYCu160.5 m 7.0  Collimators & absorbers at 7 TeV:  Numbers are for Al, Cu system. Length is given per collimator  All collimators two-sided except noted.  Number is per beam.  TCL (D2) is an upgrade for LHC ultimate performance.  Table is for 7 TeV.  Settings are for nominal luminosity and nominal  * (n 1 = 7 in the triplet).  For injection add TDI, TCL (inj), and TCDS. All around 10 . IR1 and IR5 settings could be open for injection, others remain at similar settings.

6. RA CPM 21/2/03 6 Collimators & absorbers at 7 TeV (C-based system): RegionTypeOrientationMateri al NumberLengthSetting IR1TCL (Q5) XCu21.0 m 10.0  TASRoundCu?21.8 m 12.0  TCL (D2)XCu21.0 m 10.0  IR3TCPXC10.2 m 8.0  TCSX, Y, XYC61.0 m 9.3  IR5TCL (Q5) XCu21.0 m 10.0  TASRoundCu?21.8 m 12.0  TCL (D2)XCu21.0 m 10.0  IR6TCDQX (1 side)C19.5 m 10.0  IR7TCPX, Y, XYC40.2 m 6.0  TCSX, Y, XYC161.0 m 7.0 