PS Booster Energy Upgrade K. Hanke for the PSB Upgrade WG CERN MAC 26-28 April 2010

PS Booster Energy UpgradeK. Hankefor the PSB Upgrade WGCERN MAC 26-28 April 2010

PS Booster

• construction 1972; most of the equipment original• 4 superimposed synchrotrons, circumference 157 m• complex beam splitting up and recombination• harmonic 1 and 2, max number of bunches 8• present energy range 50 MeV to 1.4 GeV• energy upgrades from 800 MeV to 1 GeV (1988), and from 1 GeV to 1.4 GeV (1999)• 7 flavors of LHC beams, 10 types of fixed target beams, intensity and emittances cover several orders of magnitude in ppm operation (1.2 s cycle length)

MAC 26-28 April 2010KH

PS Booster Energy Upgrade

Follow-up of the 2010 LHC performance workshop at Chamonix

http://indico.cern.ch/conferenceOtherViews.py?view=standard&confId=67839

- remove bottlenecks in the LHC injector chain- consolidation of the injectors is necessary anyway

see

https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/PSBUpgrade/WebHome

KH MAC 26-28 April 2010

http://indico.cern.ch/conferenceOtherViews.py?view=standard&confId=67839

https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/PSBUpgrade/WebHome

Mandate

KH

The aim of the study is to evaluate the technical feasibility of an increase in beam energy of the CERN PS Booster from presently 1.4 GeV to about 2 GeV as proposed at the Chamonix 2010 workshop.

The study comprises:• Confirm the potential gain in terms of intensity and brilliance for LHC-type beams as presented at the Chamonix 2010 workshop. • Confirm the technical feasibility. Identify accelerator components and equipment that need to be upgraded or exchanged. Identify potential showstoppers and point out solutions. Assign the responsible groups/units. Provide first rough time estimates for the various interventions needed. • Provide a first estimate of material and personnel resources needed to complete the upgrade. Draft a project break-down into work packages, in preparation for a project to be launched by the director of accelerators.

MAC 26-28 April 2010

Working Group Organisation

Work-Package Responsible Unit 1. Beam Dynamics G.Rumolo BE/ABP 2. Magnets D.Tommasini, A.Newborough, M.Buzio TE/MCS 3. RF System A.Findlay, M.Paoluzzi BE/RF 4. Beam Intercepting Devices O.Aberle EN/STI 5. Power Converters S.Pittet TE/EPC 6. Vacuum Systems E.Mahner TE/VSC 7. Instrumentation J.Tan BE/BI8. Commissioning B.Mikulec BE/OP 9. Extraction and Transfer J.Borburgh TE/ABT

10. Controls L.Fernandez BE/CO 11. Electrical Systems P.Lelong, R.Necca EN/EL12. Cooling and Ventilation M.Nonis EN/CV 13. RP and Safety T.Otto DGS/RP 14. Transport and Handling I.Ruehl EN/HE 15. Survey T.Dobers BE/ABP

CERN Task Force Leader K. Hanke Scientific Secretary T. Hermanns US LARP Representative E. Prebys

Linkperson Consolidation D.McFarlane EN/MEF Linkperson Drawing Office R.Folch EN/MMELinkperson PS R.Steerenberg BE/OP


• Nominal 25 ns LHC beam in the PSB: - 1.6E12 protons/bunch within 2.5 p mm mrad * - 6 bunches in two injections into the PS (will go to one injection with Linac4). - translates into 1.15E11 protons/bunch in the LHC (“nominal”); includes 15% losses• The PS complex machines can deliver nominal 25 ns LHC beam on an operational basis today.

• Ultimate 25 ns LHC beam in the PSB: - 2.4E12 protons/bunch within 2.5 p mm mrad * - 6 bunches in two injections into the PS. - translates into 1.7E11 protons/bunch in the LHC (“ultimate”); includes 15% losses• Out of range today. Will become possible in the PSB with Linac4. In order to inject into PS, will need PSB energy upgrade.

• Beyond Ultimate - theoretical upper limit of 3.24E12 protons/bunch injected into PS quoted by M.Giovannozzi - would translate into 2.7E11 protons/bunch in the LHC; extremely optimistic (no losses).• Need Linac4 and energy upgrade in place

* 3.5 p mm mrad at SPS extraction, includes budget for emittance blow up (not used)

Impact on LHC Luminosity


2.5 p mm mrad 2.5 p mm mrad

3.5 p mm mrad 3.5 p mm mrad

G.Rumolo

nom

inal

nom

inal

ultim

ate

ultim

ate

LHC Beams in the PSB as of Today LHCPILOT LHCPROBE LHCINDIV LHC25A+B LHC75 LHC50

emit x [mm] rms norm 2.5 <1 2.5 2.5 <2.5 <2.5

emit y [mm] rms norm 2.5 <1 2.5 2.5 <2.5 <2.5

emit z [eVs] 0.3 < 0.2 0.3 eVs 1.3 0.9 0.9

bunch length [ns] 85 70 80 180 140 140

int/ring 5.00E+09 5E9 - 2E10 0.2E11 - 1.3E11 1.60E+12* 1.08E+12* 1.63E+12

rings ring 3 ring 3 up to 4 4R+2R 2, 3, 4 2, 3, 4

25 ns beam intensity vs transverse emittance; relaxing on the 2.5 p mm mrad may allow us to reach something between nominal and ultimate with the present injectors

* maximum


feasible impact1. Beam Dynamics BE/ABP YES2. Magnets, Magnetic Measurements TE/MCS YES ++3. RF System BE/RF YES +4. Beam Intercepting Devices EN/STI YES +5. Power Converters TE/EPC YES +++6. Vacuum System TE/VSC YES +7. Instrumentation BE/BI YES8. Commissioning BE/OP YES9. Extraction, Transfer, PS Injection TE/ABT YES +++10. Controls BE/CO YES11. Electrical Systems EN/EL YES ++12. Cooling and Ventilation EN/CV YES ++13. RP and Safety DGS/RP YES14. Transport and Handling EN/HE YES15. Survey BE/ABP YES

Feasibility Study, First Overview


issues: no critical issues are anticipated in the PSB with 2 GeV operation;in the PS a few issues must be looked into in detail:- longitudinal coupled-bunch instabilities during ramp and at flat top- electron cloud and transverse instabilities at flat top- resistive wall head-tail instabilities at flat bottom- TMCI at transition crossing

proposed technical solutions:- MD proposals have been submitted and machine studies will start during the present 2010 run- potential solutions have been suggested for each point

budget: tentatively allocated 50 kCHFtime lines: first conclusions from MD studies end of 2010/11 run

WP 1 Beam Dynamics


WP 2 Magnets

KH

issues:- concern over life span due to mechanical stress during permanent pulsing at 2 GeV - saturation of outer rings will increase even more- main unit cooling, present system insufficient- auxiliary magnets: majority not affected, but study to be completed- 15-18/59 transfer line magnets presumably require exchange; need optics studies for

final confirmation- PS injection bumpers, correctors and quads being studied; preliminary results suggest

that the majority of PS low-energy magnets will need to be replacedproposed technical solutions:- stress test being prepared in SM18; if necessary add shimming between coils and retaining plates- change solid retaining plates by laminated ones to reduce/eliminate saturation- new POPS-type main power supply, reduce RMS current and make only minor modifications on the water cooling necessary (in situ); furthermore divide machine in

2 circuits and make Trim power supply obsolete; see Power Converters- modification/replacement of ~30% of the transfer line magnets- replacement of many low-energy magnetsbudget: 3525 kCHF (increased rms) / 3120 – 160 (cons.) = 2960 kCHF (similar rms)time lines: next two longer shutdowns (2012/13 and 14/15) MAC 26-28 April 2010

WP 2 Magnets

KH

Booster main magnet (spare) on test bench


WP 2 Magnets – First Budget and Manpower Estimate

KH

items sub item budget full scenario

budget LHC beams only

manpower duration

main bending magnets cooling

material + FSU + assoc. (increased rms)

460 460 FSUassoc. + staff

64 mw0.3 + 0.5 FTE

material + FSU + assoc. (similar rms)

55 (recommend for cons.)


FSUstaff

6 mw0.1 FTE

main quads cooling circuits

material + FSU + assoc. (increased rms)

105 105 FSU 10 mw

material + FSU + assoc. (similar rms)



FSU 10 mw

main bends shimming + sat.

material + FSU + assoc.

300 300 FSUassoc. + staff

18 mw0.7 + 0.5 FTE

aux. ring magnets

0 0

transfer line magnets


1410(15 magnets + sp.)

1560(18 magnets + sp.)

FSUassoc. + staff

24 mw2 + 1.5 FTE

PS inj. bumpers, low en. magnets


~1250(~100 magnets)

~1250(~100 magnets)

FSUassoc. + staff

48 mw2 + 1.5 FTE

total 3525 (i) / 3120 (s) 3675 (i) / 3270 (s)

all cost items in [kCHF]If considering only LHC beams, all items unchanged except that the BTP line would have to be made ppm at an additional cost of 150 kCHF


WP 3 RF System

KH

issues: - If consolidation in place before 2 GeV upgrade: essentially no issues.

It is under discussion to give the Booster rf consolidation high priority and to advance itsuch that it is completed by 2015 (presently in the longer term planning).

Otherwise: (for 2 GeV upgrade before start of Linac4)

proposed technical solution: - hw modifications on the LL RF- C04 amplifier upgrade

budget: 2000 kCHF plus 75 kCHF for LL RFtime lines: 3 years


WP 3 RF System – First Budget and Manpower Estimate

KH

items sub item budget if upgrade before consolidation

budget if full consolidation implemented before upgrade

manpower duration

C04 amplifiers design 200 0 RF staff mech./el. design

10 m9+9 m

prototyping, production, test

1100 0 RF staffFSU

18 m18 m

installation, commissioning

200 0 RF staffFSU

10 m12 m

HV power supp. 400 0

interlocks 100 0

controls - 0

LL Rf modif. 75 0

total 2075 0

If upgrade comes when planned rf consolidation in place, no issues and no cost.If upgrade must be done before consolidation, cost for project as quoted above.All presently produced beams or only LHC beams makes no difference.

all cost items in [kCHF]


WP 4 Beam Intercepting Devices

KH

issues: - present dump and BTP beam stopper not appropriate

proposed technical solution: - re-design dump and BTP stopper (has started in the frame of consolidation)

budget: 700 kCHF – 700 kCHF (cons.) = 0 kCHFtime lines: completion 2013

remark: consolidation issue; not to be accounted in the frame of this study


WP 5 Power Converters

KH

issues: - present MPS is not able to deliver a 2 GeV cycle; in addition it cannot deliver required RMS current; increasing peak power using traditional thyristor technology would cause inadmissible effect on Meyrin network The present 1.4 GeV is the limit, any higher energy will require a new MPS- number of smaller power converters needs to be changed- number of power converters in the PS to be upgraded- ppm operation between 1.0/1.4 GeV (ISOLDE) and 2 GeV (PS) is feasible

proposed technical solution: - new POPS-type MPS using capacitor bank- some civil engineering needed- divide machine in 2 circuits (inner and outer rings); will make 1+4 Trim power supply obsolete- replacement of a number of smaller power supplies- if the ISOLDE 1 GeV option would be eliminated, about 320 kCHF could be saved

budget: 20850 kCHF (cost driver), 320 kCHF less when eliminating ISOLDE 1 GeV optiontime lines: if approved 2010 can be completed 2015


Alfa is fully opened but still the current does not rump-up as wanted

1.4 Gev pulse

2 Gev pulse

Irms (1.2s) = 2300A Irms (1.2s) = 1700A

Power pulse increase

MPSB: Actual configuration

simulations F. BoattiniMAC 26-28 April 2010

WP 5 Power Converters – First Budget and Manpower Estimate

KH



manpower duration

MPS design, spec 1000 1000 engineer 12 m

manufacturing 10000 10000 engineer/ tech. 24 m + 32 m

civil eng. 2000 2000 engineer 12 m

inst., commiss. 2000 2000 engineer / tech. 24 m + 64 m

MPS trims 700 700 engineer / tech. 12 m +24 m

capacitor discharge upgr.

200 200 engineer / tech. 6 m +6 m

capacitor discharge new

450 450 engineer / tech. 12 m + 18 m

transfer line bendings

3200 3450 engineer / tech. 36 m + 84 m

PS ring low-en.c.

1300 1300 engineer / tech. 12 m + 12 m

total 20850 21100 all cost items in [kCHF]

main cost driver; independent of scenario (increased cost of 250 kCHF for ppm operation of BTP line)MAC 26-28 April 2010

WP 6 Vacuum System

KH

issues: - If main machine components (e.g. magnets) must be removed from the

machine, a dismantling of the vacuum system is required, which might lead to surprises and consequences that cannot be judged at the moment.

- No dynamic vacuum problems are anticipated in the PSB, but electron cloud induced pressure rises might become more significant in the PS.

proposed technical solution: - will depend on more precise input from Magnets, Transfer, Intercepting Devices

budget: o New BTP line: approx. 100 kCHF (including manpower), but new kicker, septa,

bumpers, and PS injection are not included (at least partly counted in by WP 9). o Booster modifications: not known yet, needs input from other groups, but

consolidation is foreseen.time lines: uncritical if not too many parallel vacuum activities; planning is mainly driven by WP 2, 7 and 9 activities.


WP 7 Instrumentation

KH

issues: - no critical issues identified; all equipment will work at 2 GeV

proposed technical solution: - some minor modifications on diagnostics (pick-ups and screens) due to the new recombination and PS injection septa

budget: 360 kCHFtime lines: no estimate yet, but not expected to be time driver


WP 8 Commissioning

KH

issues: - set up magnetic cycle; commissioning and scheduling issues

proposed technical solution: - a magnetic cycle has been prepared for 50 MeV – 2 GeV, and another one will be designed for 160 MeV – 2 GeV combining OP, EPC and RF constraints- proposal/scheduling of commissioning steps once hardware changes are known

budget: tentatively allocated 50 kCHFtime lines: commissioning after hardware upgrade; expected 2015. As this will coincide with commissioning of the 160 MeV H- PSB injection, one would need to allocate additional time for energy upgrade commissioning.


WP 9 Extraction, Transfer, PS Injection

KH

issues: - number of septa/kickers to be re-built , notably PSB extraction kicker, recombination

septa and PS injection septum- re-design PS injection; under study; presently not yet solved completely- PS injection kicker rise time and ripple increase if used in short-circuit mode to obtain

required deflection (emittance growth)

proposed technical solution: - PSB extraction kicker and septa need modification- PSB recombination kickers and septa need modification- longer PS injection septum under study- PS injection kickers either in short-circuit mode or supplementary PS injection kicker to

be built

For injection into the PS two options being considered: a) injection in the existing ss42: requires new septum, new bumpers, possibly supplementary new kicker in PS (53?) b) injection in ss41: requires enlarged vacuum chamber in main dipole, new BTP line,

new septum, new bumpers and possibly supplementary new kicker in PS (53?)


WP 9 – First Budget and Manpower Estimate

KH



manpower duration

kicker KFA14 + spare 1424(-150 cons.)

1424(-150 cons.)

4.3 FTE 36 m

kicker KFA10 + spare 770(-400 cons.)

770(-400 cons.)

3.3 FTE 32 m

septa BT.SMV10 and 20, modif.

+ spares 844 844 1.2 FTE 30 m

septum BE.SMH modif.

60 60 0.3 FTE 6 m

PS inj. septum + spares 731 731 2.3 FTE 30 m

PS septum bumper

84 84 0.4 FTE 12 m

additional PS injection kicker

1850 1850 3.7 FTE 36 m

total 5763 5763

Solution for PS injection modifications still requires validation.

budget: 5763 kCHF – 550 kCHF (cons.) = 5213 kCHF time lines: to be completed 2014/15 shutdown

all cost items in [kCHF]


WP 10 Controls

KH

issues: - the current system of generation of synthetic B-Train might not be able to follow the requested magnetic field- provide the controls infrastructure required for all the equipment groups

proposed technical solution: - installation of a new system of B-Train generation (new hardware modules, cabling

and repeaters)- foresee additional OASIS channels for observation of new equipment- EPC: installation of 2 PC-gateways to control via WordFip the MPS and some

converters

budget: currently 134 kCHF, but might increase after feedback from all equipment groups

time lines: must be adapted to equipment groups


WP 11 Electrical Systems

KH

issues: - present power consumption around 10 MVA- future electrical distribution will depend on the requests (power, magnets and cooling)- 25 % increase is conceivable- no more power available from transformer for general services; 18 kV cubicles cannot be extended; system needs consolidation proposed technical solution: - pending the exact specs, but upgrade of HV and LV systems required (switchboards,

cabling, LV transformer)budget: ~1550 kCHF, partly to be covered by consolidation (tbd.); time lines: to be completed after 2014/2015 shutdown



manpower duration

dismantling 50 50

upgrade HV HV switchboard, protection, cables

700 700 1 FTE 6 m

upgrade LV LV switchboard, transformer, cables

800 800 1 FTE 12 m



WP 12 Cooling and Ventilation

KH

issues: - future design of cooling and ventilation will depend on the cooling needs, mainly magnets, power and rf; presently not yet settled- length of the shutdowns is a concern (might need ~6 months in a row)

proposed technical solution: - expect complete replacement of cooling station and some distribution piping,

present system not sized for increase in pressure and cooling power

budget: 5500 kCHF – 4500 kCHF (cons.) = 1000 kCHFtime lines: can be completed by 2014/15 if long shutdown



manpower duration

upgrade cooling 2000(-1000 cons.)

2000(-1000 cons.)

3.9 FTE 22 m

upgrade ventilation

3500 (-3500 cons.)

3500 (-3500 cons.)

4.2 FTE 22 m



WP 13 RP and Safety

KH

issues: - loss figures will scale with energy- dose rate due to work on machine components, notably in the tunnel

proposed technical solution: - estimate of loss figures in progress (based on measurements at 1.4 GeV)- modernisation of monitoring system covered by RAMSES II project- dose planning and optimisation before upgrade work in PSB tunnel or transfer lines

budget, time lines: - 2 - 3 man-months study of radiation effects (activation, stray radiation)


KH

WP 14 Transport and Handling

issues: - no major issues, equipment despite its age in good shape- consolidation of the Booster lift urgent

proposed technical solution: - estimate of loss figures in progress (based on measurements at 1.4 GeV)

budget: 680 kCHF, of which 400 kCHF (mainly for lift/cranes) covered by consolidation time lines: -


WP 15 Survey

KH

issues: - no issues related to 2 GeV operation- if major equipment is removed from the tunnel, risk to lose stability of the geometry

proposed technical solution: - study of the impact on overall geometry and proposal of work steps- consultation for alignment/target/support design of new equipment

budget: allocated 50 kCHF for worst case scenariotime lines: -


Summary Resources

KH

work unit budget full scenario budget LHC beams only part covered by consolidation

potential saving

beam dynamics 50 50 -

magnets 3525 (i) / 3120 (s) 3675 (i) / 3270 (s) 160 (s) tbc. 210

rf 2075 2075 2075 if full RF consolidation! (otherwise lost)

beam intercepting devices

700 700 700

power converters 20850 21100 6630

vacuum 100 100 -

instrumentation 360 360 -

commissioning 50 50 -

beam transfer 5763 5763 550

controls 134 134 -

electrical systems 1550 1550 tbd.

cooling & ventilation 5500 5500 4500

rp, safety - - -

transport 680 680 400

survey 50 50 -

total 41387 (i) / 40982 (s) 41787 (i) / 41382 (s) 8385 6840

all cost itemsin [kCHF]

• cabling not alw

ays included


Summary Time Lines

KH

2010-2011: LHC run with only minor interruptionswinter 2011/2012: usual injector shutdownwinter 2012/2013: usual injector shutdown2013/2014: LHC run with only minor interruptionswinter 2014/2015: longer shutdown for PSB injection modifications with Linac4

➝ Currently in Linac4 schedule only 1+3 months shutdown for PSB injection modifications➝ Need additional time for PSB 2 GeV energy upgrade modifications➝ Extended period for parallel commissioning of Linac4 + energy upgrade

Completion during 2014/15 shutdown tight, but feasible under following assumptions:• Need rapidly go-ahead for project going along with required budget • Manpower needs to be assured in time• Bring consolidation project in line with 2 GeV energy upgrade project• Delay 2015 start with p beam by a few months due to parallel Linac4 and 2 GeV Upgrade

modifications and commissioning


Possible Contributions from Collaborations

US-LARP involved (E.Prebys / FNAL)Propose help with simulations: e-cloud, beam loss etc.

However we need mainly hardware:

1.) new main power supply2.) large number of smaller power supplies3.) new magnets4.) septa and kickers5.) lots of smaller items

If LARP contributions are manpower rather than hardware, then somebody helping with MDs (PS injection) could be helpful, as well as during the commissioning phase.

Meeting E.Prebys 3-4 May


Summary

• showstopper identification completed → no showstoppers, but a number of significant modifications identified

• costing and scheduling ongoing. - putting in place the energy upgrade before Linac4 (2015) is

a) schedule-/resource-wise unrealistic b) more costly as consolidation will not be in place by then

• looked into 2 scenarios: energy upgrade with Linac2 and with Linac4→ recommend strongly to put in place the energy upgrade with Linac4

• significant savings (~3000 kCHF) could be made by upgrading only up to 1.7 GeV➝ seems not worth the effort

• looked into case where all beams to the PS are at 2 GeV and where only LHC beams (8 out of 18 1.2s cycles) are executed at 2 GeV and all other beams remain at 1.4 GeV → cost would even slightly increase by looking at an ‘LHC-only’ energy upgrade; → recommend to implement energy upgrade for all beams sent to the PS→ minor saving possible in case ISOLDE 1 GeV option would be suppressed


Documents

PS Booster Energy Upgrade K. Hanke for the PSB Upgrade WG CERN MAC 26-28 April 2010