First Status Report on Show Stoppersfor PSB Energy Upgrade

11. March 2010

PSB Energy Upgrade Working Group Meeting

PSB Energy Upgrade WG 11. March 2010 2

Beam Dynamics(information provided by G. Rumolo)

3

BR.BHZ Normal configuration Present +30% (1.98GeV) FIELD STRENGTH (T) 0.86 1.12* PEAK CURRENT (A)

Inner Rings 4032 5255*Outer Rings 4065 5515*

POWER COMSUMPTION (cold) (kW) 49 83 Q : P @ T= 28 K (l/min) (bar) 26 : 11 44 : 22T : @ Q = 26 l/min (K) 28 47

Antony Newborough TE/MSC/MNC – PSB Energy Upgrade - 11 th March 2010

BR.QF Present +30% (1.98GeV)FIELD GRADIENT (T/m) 5.60 7.66PEAK CURRENT (A) 4032 5255POWER COMSUMPTION (kW) 16 27Q (@ T= 20 K) (l/min) 12 20T (@ Q = 12l/min) (K) 20 34

BR.QD Present +30% (1.98GeV)FIELD GRADIENT (T/m) 5.60 7.66PEAK CURRENT (A) 4032 5255POWER COMSUMPTION (kW) 11 19Q (@ T= 20 K) (l/min) 8 14T (@ Q = 8.3l/min) (K) 20 34

Q: What field (energy) can be realistically achieved (assume around 2 GeV but to be confirmed)

Q: Can the magnets run like this 7/7 24/24? (Concern for main Bending magnets)A: Could reduce the life by years, what is the life?• Proposal 1 – Endurance test at upgrade values for 25 years.• Proposal 2 – Extreme test at low frequency for a short period of time.

BR.BHZ Present Upgrade Proposed Test Energy (GeV) 1.4 2 3.6**Field (T) 0.86 1.13 1.8Current (kA) 4 5.5 10Coil Force on retaining plates (kN) 32 54 138

Q: Can the magnets run like this only for certain users (~1/3 of the beams)? What are the modifications needed?A: Greater definition needed, what will be the RMS current over the super cycle? Max number of 2 GeV cycles? Minimum modification – increase flow / pressure by upgrading the PSB cooling circuit. Maximum modification – increase flow / pressure by upgrading the PSB cooling circuit + Magnet circuit modifications.

* Confirmed by Magnetic Measurement

** Not realistic

PSB Energy Upgrade WG 11. March 2010 4

B-Field Measurements(information provided by M. Buzio)

Courbes de magnétisation

0,50,70,91,11,31,51,71,92,1

1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000 6500

I [A]

JBdl [T.m]Outer ring top

Inner ring top

Outer ring down

Inner ring down

Niveau de saturation en fonction du courant

-7

-6

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000 6500

I [A]

Saturation [%]

Outer ring top

Inner ring top

Outer ring down

Inner ring down

5

PSB RF SYSTEMS LIMITATIONS WITH 2 GeV CYCLE FOR LHC BEAMS

M.E.Angoletta, A.Blas, A.Butterworth, A.Findlay, W.Hofle, M.Paoluzzi

Beam Intensity 5E9- 1.65E12 per ring, H=1 or H=2, 8kV from 160MeV-2GeV in a 1.2s cycle

PSB Low Level Beam ControlIf present consolidation program is respected, the required changes can be included for the 2GeV cycle. Study underway by M.E.Angoletta & A.Blas.

PSB High Level Cavities and Control (by M.Paoluzzi)C02 and C04 RF system:No problems expected to cover the new frequency range, digest the additional beam current and supply the increased power. C16 RF system:The frequency range cannot be extended to 18 MHz ( limited to ~ 16 MHz).Lowering the blow-up frequency sent to this cavity is the present operational solution, and it will tested with the new frequency range.If higher beam current or faster cycling are required the new scenarios must be defined and studied.

For LHC beams and intensities beyond the LHC nominal intensity, the limitations of the RF systems with a cycle to 2 GeV must be evaluated.

6

PSB RF SYSTEMS LIMITATIONS WITH 2 GeV CYCLE FOR LHC BEAMS

M.E.Angoletta, A.Blas, A.Butterworth, A.Findlay, W.Hofle, M.Paoluzzi

PSB Transverse Feedback SystemThe increase of energy to 2 GeV has only a marginal impact on the specifications (7% more power), so this demand will be included in the study underway by A.Blas to define the system requirements associated with LINAC 4.

What We Require From The PSB 2GeV Task Force

•A 2GeV cycle definition including acceleration duration, Bdot & extraction flat top length.

•We only have one set of hardware, so any changes to the hardware should take into consideration ALL required cycles from the PSB, so the cycles for all beams need to be defined.

PSB Energy Upgrade WG 11. March 2010 7

Beam Intercepting Devices

Von: Oliver.Aberle@cern.ch

Betreff: I'm away (about "meeting psb booster energy upgrade wg on 11. marc...")

Datum: 9. März 2010 12:39:15 MEZ

An: thomas.hermanns@cern.ch

I'm out of office until 15th of March.

8

Power Converters status• Ring MPS

– The existing supply can not endorse the additional RMS current.– An increase of peak power, using traditional thyristor technology, would have a significant negative effect on power

quality of the Meyrin network 18 kV, which would be inadmissible. – The solution will probably be a design similar to the new POPS for the PS, using DC capacitors to store the energy

for the pulsating load (civil engineering work required).

• Ring– Multipoles consolidation foreseen in 2011. New converters should withstand 2GeV operation.– Many BDS, BDL, shavers, Qstrips and main quads converters will probably need to be replaced.

• Ejection & Transfer lines– Some converters already can withstand 2GeV operation, and many can be upgraded in order to withstand 2GeV.– A few converters will have to be totally replaced.– 1GeV Isolde to 2GeV PS transient has to be studied carefully.

All calculations are based on a 50% increase of the 2009 operation current at 1.4 GeV. Magnets saturation or replacement has not been considered.

EPC Manpower availability not confirmed up to 2015.

11/03/2010 Serge Pittet 8

TE EPCTE EPC

PSB Energy Upgrade WG 11. March 2010 9

Vacuum Systems

PSB Energy Upgrade WG 11. March 2010 10

Instrumentation(information provided by J. Tan)

Still gathering information from BI experts

11

B. Mikulec / Commissioning

Operational Scenarios

Beams Destination Extraction Energy

NORMGPS, NORMHRS, STAGISO

ISOLDE 1.4 GeV and rarely 1 GeV

all other users PS and downstream dest.

2 GeV

ISOLDE might come up with new request for extraction energy in framework of HIE-ISOLDE (under study)

Some PS users would in principle not require 2 GeV PS injection energy (EAST cycles and LHCPROBE/LHCPILOT), but: Simplified operation should be guaranteed (same magnetic cycle for LHC

beams, same BTP optics) Current BTP magnets are non-ppm (solid magnet yokes)

Current situation: ISOLDE ~1/3 of all cycles IF PRESENT in supercycle; 600 ms cycles not considered here

Should assume worst situation for magnet rms currents being ALL cycles at 2 GeV and max. repetition rate of 900 ms

B. Mikulec / Commissioning

PSB Energy Upgrade WG 11. March 2010 12

Extraction and Transfer/PS Injection

(information provided by J. Borburgh)

Equipment type SystemCan be converted to 2 GeV compatible?

Comment

Septum BESMH yes magnets ok; interconnects to be reinforcedSeptum BTSMV10 probably longer magnets needed; Horizontal aperture reduction possible?Septum BTSMV20 yes long temp impact on magnet to be validatedKicker BE.BSW yes okKicker BT.KFA10 yes magnet ferrite change recommended & new spare tank needed (higher risk of failure, no margin and no

spare presently available)Kicker BT.KFA20 yes ok, higher risk of failure, no marginKicker BE.KFA

14L1Yes ok up to 1.7 GeV. New magnets and tank required beyond. Present tank and magnet upgrade

recommended to have a spare (higher risk of failure, no margin)Septum SMH 42 no new injection layout to be developpedKicker KFA45 yes / no ok only with operation in short-circuit mode which means an increase of rise and fall times by ~50% is

accepted. If not, additional 2 magnets and generators needed (new developments). Space available ?injection optics showstopper identification before end of March

13

PSB Energy upgrade: Controls viewpoint

• 1.4 -> 2 Gev energy upgrade– At 1st sight : NO showstopper

• Potential upgrade to a faster cycle of 600ms (Isolde cycles? )– Central timing, CBCM => OK

– Potential scalability issues on

• Device accesses from AP : load X2 on CMW and network

• Telegram event distribution : load X2

• Current 900ms forewarning timings: will not work, to be reduced to << 600 ms

• Conclusion: in depth feasibility study required if the 600 ms scenario is confirmed.

PSB Energy Upgrade WG 11. March 2010 14

Electrical Systems

15

CV stations

• To be refurbished completely• Main problems:

– Primary circuit, limited in power during hot period– HVAC: old installations, in concrete, review the heating

principle.

• Cooling circuit: < 10 years• Ventilation circuit: first priority• Chilled water: no intervention in short eterm.

PSB Upgrade – M. Nonis - 11.3.2010

16

Radiation Protection• If fractional beam loss remains constant, dose, dose rate,

personal dose during interventions will increase– by a factor of 1.3 from energy upgrade to 2 GeV– by a factor of 2 from LINAC 4 intensity gain

• Critical areas are :– injection into to PS (Route Goward)– collimators become “ hot spots” – injection into PSB (independent of energy increase)

• Increased ventilation speed -> increased release of radioactive air (measured for the first time with Ramses II light !)

• For any estimation of the magnitude of radiation effects, approximate beam loss figures are required

17

Major transport and handling equipment CH-066/067 SMISO 10t trailers; 1970; bldg.361 PR-0138 MUNCK 20t crane; 1970; bldg 361 AS-045 GEBAUER 2t lift;1970, bldg 361 PR-134/135/136/137 MUNCK 10t cranes;1970; bldg.360

All the equipment is in reasonable condition for present intervention scenarios despite its age.

Risks -> modifications might be required depending on: Expected workload for transport and handling equipment? Installation of new Booster machine components – increased

dimensions and weight, equipment sensitivity (vibrations etc.), new handling interfaces, integration vs. transport zones?

Expected future radiation level – need of remote handling, additional shielding?

11.03.2010 Ingo Rühl / EN-HE

PSB Energy Upgrade WG 11. March 2010 18

Survey

No responsibility assigned yet