(Some) MDI Engineering Aspects at ILC & CLIC A. Hervé / ETH-Zürich Together with ILC and CLIC MDI Groups CLIC Meeting-14 January 2011

Alain Hervé, CLIC-Meeting, 14 January This is a slightly updated version of the talk presented at IWLC10 on Friday 22 Oct. 2010

3 Content of the talk I will not try to cover all aspects of MDI, please refer to talks of the working group chairmen: Andrei Seryi (John Adams Institute) for ILC. Lau Gatignon (CERN) for CLIC I will introduce: the main features of MDI for ILC, then look at CLIC, pointing out what is different and why, not forgetting at the end the challenges of the Push-Pull. Alain Hervé, CLIC-Meeting, 14 January 2011

4 MDI at a LC is governed by A small L* (3.5 m) to maximize luminosity, and thus the last machine elements penetrate inside the detector. A small size of the beams (nm level), requiring extreme stability of the BDS. An active pre-alignment system is needed to correct for slow drifts A beam fast Feed Back system is also mandatory to correct movements at higher frequencies. Alain Hervé, CLIC-Meeting, 14 January 2011

5 ILC Alain Hervé, CLIC-Meeting, 14 January 2011

6 SiD: QD0 penetrates inside the experiments QD0 QF 2 concepts SiD and ILC Retained after LoIs

7 Position of the BDS elements and QD0 aligned at ± 10 μm rms w.r.t ideal straight line. For the last 500 meters on each side of IP Pre-alignment system, example of CLIC (H. Maynaud et al. /CERN) Alain Hervé, CLIC-Meeting, 14 January 2011 (active) prealignment system is mandatory

Philip Burrows CLIC MDI Meeting 6/11/09 8 Intra-train feedback system Last line of defence against relative beam misalignment BPM measures vertical deviation of outgoing beam Fast kicker correct vertical position of beam incoming to IR (JAI/Oxford, Valencia, CERN, DESY, KEK, SLAC)

QD0 in ILC (Bret Parker / BNL) Very involved coil package at 1.8 K ⇐ Field on axis is reduced and luminosity is recovered

DiD and anti DiD at ILC (Dipole Integrated Detector) ➽ not adopted at CLIC Alain Hervé, CLIC08 Workshop, 16 October DiD on-axis field

ILC typical beam line components IP 1 st conical tube DN150CF flange Ion pump integrated in beam pipe Pre-pumping port + gauges Special gate valve BPM QD0 Cryostat, Coils at 1.8K Kicker Valves for Push-Pull Common break point at 9m from IP Bellows (ILD) Alain Hervé, CLIC-Meeting, 14 January 2011

12 QF 1.8 K Cam/support SiD supports the QD0 from the endcap door using a cam/support system BPM Kicker IP This is based on SLD Experience Alain Hervé, CLIC-Meeting, 14 January 2011

QD0 support ILD: QDO supported from the tunnel wall (Matthieu Joré / LLR) Using 2 square tubes : –Internal QD0 support tube Attached to machine tunnel Good coherency with machine vibrations and high natural frequency –External FCals support tube Could be supported from pillar and tension rods 5 mm gap between both supports Machine concrete QF1 Pillar Tension rods (from an idea of Hiroshi Yamaoka at KEK, idea also used by CLIC detectors) Alain Hervé, CLIC-Meeting, 14 January 2011

14 Vibration consideration for ILC and influence of beam Feed-Back system (P. Burrows et al. / JAI) For ILC, the fast beam Feed Back system developed at JAI is very efficient and can have a reach of 300 nm. Thus the needed stability of the QD0 support is around 50 nm or better. First vibration measurements in the CMS area have shown that this is possible. Alain Hervé, CLIC-Meeting, 14 January 2011

15 Vibration consideration from CMS Geophones Top 100 nm Ground 5 nm Measurements at KEK on BELLE (Hiroshi Yamaoka) have also shown a degradation of performances when moving up along the yoke. ➽ 50 nm at beam level look reasonable. Vibrations on ground and top of CMS central barrel YB0 in ‘Quiet experimental area’ end of 2009 (Artoos, Guinchard et al.) Alain Hervé, CLIC-Meeting, 14 January 2011

16 CLIC Alain Hervé, CLIC-Meeting, 14 January 2011

17 Introduction - II CLIC MDI studies have benefitted of a jump-start due to the studies done for ILC. However two parameters are really different and make the problem more difficult: The vertical size of the beam is smaller, typically 1 nm compared to 5 nm in ILC The beam time structure is unfavorable and the reach of the beam Feed-Back system is reduced. Alain Hervé, CLIC-Meeting, 14 January 2011

IP-Feed-Back Systems (Phil Burrows and J. Resta-Lopez / JAI) ILC (500 GeV) Beam time structure: –Train repetition rate: 5 Hz –Bunch separation: ns –Train length: µs Intra-train (allows bunch-to-bunch correction) Digital FB processor (allows FPGA programming) CLIC (3 TeV) Beam time structure: –Train repetition rate: 50 Hz –Bunch separation: 0.5 ns –Train length: µs Intra-train (but not bunch-to-bunch) All-analogue FB processor For CLIC, intra-train FB corrections at the IP are especially challenging bunch separation about 740 times smaller than for the ILC bunch train length about 6200 times shorter than for the ILC Alain Hervé, CLIC-Meeting, 14 January 2011

19 Stability of the QD0 mechanical support If we move backward in the CLIC stabilization budget: Ultimate stabilization to obtained the luminosity is Hz at IP. Thus, before the intra-train Fast Feed-Back system, a stability of 0.5 nm is needed. Thus, before the active stabilization system, 5 nm or less are needed for the stability of the QD0 mechanical support. This is a factor 10 w.r.t. ILC! Alain Hervé, CLIC-Meeting, 14 January 2011

20 To obtain the utmost beam stability for CLIC additional efforts are needed. (In addition to the active pre-alignment and intra-train Fast Feed-Back systems) Alain Hervé, CLIC-Meeting, 14 January 2011

1-Use a permanent magnet QD0 (Michele Modena et al. / CERN) 21 This is to suppress vibrations due to cooling and thin suspensions of the cold mass. The use of Permendur imposes to have H ≈ 0. Thus a non negligible anti- solenoid coil, fixed on the endcap, has to be foreseen outside the support tube. This will also reduce the field seen by the beam and recover luminosity loss ⇐ (Barbara Dalena). Alain Hervé, CLIC-Meeting, 14 January 2011

22 2-Decouple the QD0 support from the experiment This has been shown previously: the most stable element is the tunnel floor and not the yoke of the experiment. Top 100 nm Ground 5 nm ⇐ Measurements in CMS area end of Alain Hervé, CLIC-Meeting, 14 January 2011

23 3-Minimize the length of the support tube It is clear that the length of the support tube must be minimized as flexion is involved. This can be obtained by abandoning the opening on IP. Anyway not much maintenance can be done on IP, and if the Push-Pull operation is working well, it is more efficient to repair in the garage area. Alain Hervé, CLIC-Meeting, 14 January 2011

24 Minimize the length of the support tube Platform Pacman -> Pacrings End of Tunnel Alain Hervé, CLIC-Meeting, 14 January 2011

View of the shielding Packring arrangement Alain Hervé, CLIC08 Workshop, 16 October

Clearly CLIC experiments must have the same length! Alain Hervé, CLIC08 Workshop, 16 October This has been achieved for CLIC_SiD and CLIC_ILD at the cost of some active coils in CLIC_ILD pacrings

7 May 2010H. Gerwig - 13th MDI27 Hall Experiment 1 Hall Experiment 2 Transfer tunnel with IP Alignment Tunnel Discussed with J. Osborne & M. Gastal Excavated volume is less than for a standard hall Flat walls on tunnel sides 19/10/ This governs the proposal for CLIC Experimental Area (H. Gerwig / CERN)

28 The idea is to decouple and stabilize the support of QD0 and QF1. It must be connected to the active pre-alignment system to correct or low freq. (< 1 Hz) movements. 4-Support the QD0 and QF1 from a Pre-Isolator (Andrea Gaddi et al. / CERN) Alain Hervé, CLIC-Meeting, 14 January 2011

CLIC QD0QF1 Pre-isolator slab (can be extracted as one complete unit) through the experimental area Accelerator tunnel  IP Alain Hervé, CLIC-Meeting, 14 January 2011

CLIC Alain Hervé, CLIC08 Workshop, 16 October Low freq. air springs

5-Adopt the solution of a double tube Thank You ! 31Alain Hervé, CLIC-Meeting, 14 January 2011 (Timing!)

The outer support-tube allows access Alain Hervé, CLIC08 Workshop, 16 October

Double support-Tube and anti-Solenoid Alain Hervé, CLIC08 Workshop, 16 October

Detail supporting of double Support-Tube Alain Hervé, CLIC08 Workshop, 16 October

35 ➽ It has to be implemented inside the limited space and environment of the support tube, more integration effort is needed. (Andrea Jeremie et al. Annecy) Proof of principle has been obtained in the lab. 6-Use a sophisticated active Stabilization System Alain Hervé, CLIC-Meeting, 14 January 2011

Present cross section of Support-Tube Alain Hervé, CLIC08 Workshop, 16 October Active stabilization system Clearly more integration work will be needed inside the support tube. Support QD0 coils from outer Support-Tube Outer Support- Tube Criscrossed inner Support- Tube QD0

37 Obtaining the utmost beam stability All these efforts will pay but it must not be forgotten that: ➽ The first important measure will be to choose a ‘quiet’ site with respect to cultural noise and design a ‘quiet’ area with respect to technical noise. Alain Hervé, CLIC-Meeting, 14 January 2011

38 Push-Pull Considerations Alain Hervé, CLIC-Meeting, 14 January 2011

39 Reminder The push-pull project, to exchange quickly two experiments on IP, is a very ambitious one. In size of loads to be moved > 10’000 tons, number of movements, 6 per year ➽ 180 over 15 years. It is demanding considering: environment, final precision, and time constraints, (full exchange in less than three or four days) including precise realignment. But, one must always be able to extract sideway an experiment for maintenance every year (like Opal, Delphi, Aleph… on LEP). Thus the Push-Pull project is just a more demanding normal maintenance displacement scenario! Alain Hervé, CLIC-Meeting, 14 January 2011

detector B may be accessible during run accessible during run Platform for electronic and services. Shielded. Moves with detector. Isolate vibrations. Starting point (~2006) push-pull for ILC Proposal by A. Seryi first Power Point detector A

Alain Hervé, CLIC08 Workshop, 16 October SiD and ILD with or without a platform ? ( M. Oriunno / SLAC ) As the idea of push-pull has been introduced during the LoI process, ILD has adopted a platform, however SiD has chosen to move directly on the ground. Presently the two solutions are not compatible, and discussion are going on and a work plan has been adopted to converge fairly quickly. With Without Alain Hervé, CLIC-Meeting, 14 January 2011

42 Push-Pull for CLIC detectors H. Gerwig / A Gaddi 19/10/ CLIC has chosen to use platforms from the start

This governs the geometry of exp area Alain Hervé, CLIC08 Workshop, 16 October

First concept of experimental area Alain Hervé, CLIC08 Workshop, 16 October

45 Platform/ Airpad consideration The platform solution shows all its advantages when used in conjunction with airpads (as opposed to rollers), because airpads: have no preferred direction of movement. allow an easy repair of the rail / support system, removing the high risk of staying blocked. allow a fast and safe positioning of the experiment on beam. Alain Hervé, CLIC-Meeting, 14 January 2011

Alain Hervé, CLIC08 Workshop, 16 October Load will arrive off-center and off-axis Alain Hervé, CLIC-Meeting, 14 January 2011

Alain Hervé, CLIC08 Workshop, 16 October D movement and a rotation are needed this is very difficult with rollers Alain Hervé, CLIC-Meeting, 14 January 2011

Alain Hervé, CLIC08 Workshop, 16 October With Airpads a simple positive indexing mechanism is possible giving ≈mm precision Alain Hervé, CLIC-Meeting, 14 January 2011

Alain Hervé, CLIC08 Workshop, 16 October The final precision could be +-1 mm and mrad. Alain Hervé, CLIC-Meeting, 14 January 2011

50 Vertical adjustment Exchanging 10’000 ton experiments will induce a settlement of the whole experimental zone and adjacent machine tunnels. One can expect vertical movements in the millimeter range that can take one month to recover. This kind of slow drift must also be taken care of by the active pre-alignment system. Alain Hervé, CLIC-Meeting, 14 January 2011

51 Moving towards a common solution for the Push-Pull system ILD is making studies to justify that it cannot move without a platform. At the same time, it must be shown that the use of a platform is not detrimental to SiD that has chosen to support the QD0s from the endcap doors. CLIC must also demonstrate that the lay-out of the experimental area will allow to meet the specification. Alain Hervé, CLIC-Meeting, 14 January 2011

52 Vibration consideration at ILC moving towards a common solution The priority is to develop credible simulation tools, and Marco Oriunno at SLAC for SiD and Hitoshi Yamaoka at KEK for ILD have started extensive studies. However, one must make sure that the results of simulations are in agreement with reality and extensive benchmarking is required. Alain Hervé, CLIC-Meeting, 14 January 2011

53 1 st Mode, 2.38 Hz 2 nd Mode, 5.15 Hz 3 rd Mode, 5.45 Hz 4 th Mode, 6.53 Hz 5 th Mode, Hz 6 th Mode, 13.7 Hz Vertical motion SiD Free Vibration Mode (example) M. Oriunno / SLAC

54 Response amplitude (Comparison of computations and measurements) QCS-t QCS-s Coil-t Coil-s Calculation: damp=0.5% MeasurementCalculation: H. Yamaoka / KEK

55 Vibration considerations connected to the platform The CMS plug is a good example of what can be a Push-Pull platform, it has the necessary rigidity. It can be used to benchmark the simulation programs. First vibration measurements have been carried out end of End Oct. a new measurement campaign has been performed (K. Artoos, M. Guinchard et al.) for SiD. Alain Hervé, CLIC-Meeting, 14 January 2011

A. Hervé - 12 July 2007 ILC-IRENG The 2000-ton CMS Plug has been used for the Heavy Lifting operation Plug 1 CMS plug

Alain Hervé, CLIC08 Workshop, 16 October The CMS Plug finished looks neat! 20 m

Alain Hervé, CLIC08 Workshop, 16 October Steel reinforcement of CMS Plug ➽ Clearly models need benchmarking to evaluate damping coefficient and Young’s modulus

59 Vibration consideration connected to the platform The study of the CMS plug is a good example of work that is in interest of both ILC and CLIC (ILC is interested in the platform solution and CLIC has directly engaged on using two platforms for the Push-Pull operation.) Alain Hervé, CLIC-Meeting, 14 January 2011

60 Vibration and movements connected to civil engineering LHC experimental areas for ATLAS and CMS are a good example of how such systems behave in the CERN geology. However, the level of the requirements for CLIC necessitates to re-examine the situation of general movements, ground vibration and micro-seisms. A first discussion with tunneling experts has been organized by J. Osborne mid February. Alain Hervé, CLIC-Meeting, 14 January 2011

61 John Osborne : GS-SE At the Linear Collider Workshop in Oct 2009 in Geneva, it was agreed in the MDI subgroup that further in-depth civil engineering studies should be undertaken to study the feasibility of the proposed detector movement system and experimental area layout As such, a one day workshop is being set-up at CERN to see how best this issue can be tackled on 16 th February 2011 An expert tunneling firm from London (ARUP) are participating in this first meeting Goals of the meeting : Review the experience learnt from LHC detector assembly, installation and operational movements Review existing data on ground movements / stability / vibration issues Plan how best to verify the feasibility of the concrete platform concept and potential ground movements that could be induced by detector exchange with push-pull operation Share knowledge with ILC Civil Engineering Studies for CLIC Experimental Layout

62 Conclusions Alain Hervé, CLIC-Meeting, 14 January 2011

63 Conclusions-I To maximize LC luminosity the last focusing element must penetrate inside the experiment to achieve a low L*. The small size of the beams imposes to use an active pre-alignment system against slow drifts. In addition a beam Fast Feed Back system is needed to correct for movements at higher frequencies. This is sufficient for ILC that benefits from a favorable beam time structure. For CLIC that has smaller beam size and an unfavorable beam time structure, supplementary efforts are needed. Alain Hervé, CLIC-Meeting, 14 January 2011

64 Conclusions-II The Push-Pull system is a very demanding project and there is no example to refer to. CLIC has adopted a platform to move each experiment. ILC concepts are in discussion to adopt a common solution and a working plan has been drafted. It is important to make sure that the platform solution does not worsen the stability of the QD0s that, in SiD, are supported from the endcap doors. Alain Hervé, CLIC-Meeting, 14 January 2011

65 Conclusions-III The CMS plug is a good example of what a platform could be. It can be used to benchmark simulation models. Further vibration measurements on the CMS plug will be needed. These measurements are also in the interest of the CLIC project. The studies of platform and associated vibrations could be part of the ILC/CLIC Collaboration. Alain Hervé, CLIC-Meeting, 14 January 2011

66 Conclusions-IV The MDI studies are now mature for both ILC and CLIC. More detailed studies and tests are needed for CLIC due to the level of stability required for the QD0. More studies are needed from the civil engineering point of view to ascertain slow movements and vibrations (starts with meeting mid-Feb.). The requirements are different enough that (apart maybe the Push-Pull system proper) solutions adopted by ILC and CLIC, although similar, are fairly different and are likely to stay different. Alain Hervé, CLIC-Meeting, 14 January 2011

Thank You ! 67Alain Hervé, CLIC-Meeting, 14 January 2011