Comparison between 1) HL-LHC BASELINE: Q5 at point 6 at 1 Comparison between 1) HL-LHC BASELINE: Q5 at point 6 at 1.9 K 2) OPTION: Q5 at point 6 at 4.5 K Contributions from WP3: D. Duarte, V. Parma, H. Prin, E. Todesco. WP6a: A. Ballarino, A. Jacquemod WP6b: J.P. Burnet WP7: D. Wollmann WP9: S. Claudet, A. Perin, R. Van Weelderen WP12: V. Baglin WP13: T. Lefevre WP15: P. Fessia, B. Vazquez de Prada WP17.2: J.C. Guillaume Presented by P. Fessia HL-TCC 11/02/2016

Rational In order to cope with optics limitations in Point 6 the approved HL baseline proposes to What : Change the Q5 with new cold masses having 2 MQY in series and cooled at 4.5 K When: Perform the activity in LS2 to spread the TE-MSC work-load Extra benefit Work in less activated environment The following option has been put for consideration from WP3 What Modify the presently installed Q5 to work at 1.9 K It requires QRL modifications Perform the activity in LS3 Reduce use of LHC spares magnets . Fessia HL-TCC 11/02/2016 Q5 Point 6: 4.5 K vs. 1.9 K and Q6 at Point 1 and Point 5

Summary of analysis WP3/TE-MSC WP9/TE-CRG Other WPs/groups/equipment Comparison in term of procurement Comparison in term of work load distribution WP9/TE-CRG Comparison for operative costs Other WPs/groups/equipment Cost/work load and other final considerations PERSONAL REMARK: cost differences coming out from possible decisions shall not be straight forward applied to present HL budget because I doubt that the full cost analysis was included in the budget fro all the WPs . Fessia HL-TCC 11/02/2016 Q5 Point 6: 4.5 K vs. 1.9 K and Q6 at Point 1 and Point 5

WP3/TE-MSC . Fessia HL-TCC 11/02/2016 Q5 Point 6: 4.5 K vs. 1.9 K and Q6 at Point 1 and Point 5

Implications for WP3/TE-MSC related procurements HL-LHC baseline Q5 at 4.5 K Option Q5 at 1.9 K Item Action Cost/ Pro and cons Magnets Need to use 4 new MQY and 2 MCBY magnets from available spares 2X0.5 MCHF +250 KCHF tool = 1.2 MCHF From present forecast for MQ spares Not incurred costs Cold Masses 2 recovered activated spares (2 MQY+2MCBY) Special Storage needed Design of new cold masses Done Design of new heat exchanger system including design the QQS cold mass piping modifications 80 kCHF* Assembly of the two cold masses from scratch 2X350 kCHF =750KCHF** Modification of the two activated cold masses 135 kCHF** +100 kCHF * Cryostat Design of new cryostats Nearly done Design of new QQS 1.9K fitting with Point 6 radial constraints (dump line) 15 kCHF Procurement of 2 new cryostats 800 kCHF +1 FTE*year staff Reuse of the same cryostat with modification of the QQS working on activated units 120 kCHF * To be done for the Q5 in IR1&5 ** Manpower and material included . Fessia HL-TCC 11/02/2016 Q5 Point 6: 4.5 K vs. 1.9 K and Q6 at Point 1 and Point 5

Implications for WP3/TE-MSC related activities HL-LHC baseline Q5 at 4.5 K Option Q5 at 1.9 K Item when Action Cost/ Pro and cons Work load Before LS2 Single magnet cold testing (4 MQY+2 correctors) Cold mass assembly Cryostating Full Unit cold testing Single magnet MQY cold testing @ 1.9K to evaluate the MQY performance (2 successfully tested already) LS2 Work to be performed in LS2 De-interconnection BFBM De interconnection present units Re- interconnection new units Re-interconnection DFBM Before LS3 - Procurement piping and minor components LS3 De-interconnection DFBM De-cryostating CM and QQS modification Cold test ? Require work in radioactive workshop Interconnection new units = . Fessia HL-TCC 11/02/2016 Q5 Point 6: 4.5 K vs. 1.9 K and Q6 at Point 1 and Point 5

WP9/TE-CRG . Fessia HL-TCC 11/02/2016 Q5 Point 6: 4.5 K vs. 1.9 K and Q6 at Point 1 and Point 5

Implications for WP9/TE-CRG related procurements HL-LHC baseline Q5 at 4.5 K Option Q5 at 1.9 K Item Action Cost/ Pro and cons QRL Procure/build 2 new service modules. Only very tight option for LS2 2X250 kCHF Modifications of 2 recovered spare service module at 4.5 K (if possible) 2X100 kCHF Horizontal jumper connection DFBM Modifications of shield working at 1.9 K Current leads rated at 6 kA ok for operation Operation Operation for 10 years 50 kCHF 100 kCHF Extra jumper to cope with slope and guarantee the magnet wetting To be verified not spotted before by WP3 colleagues. Not accounted in value cost evaluation = . Fessia HL-TCC 11/02/2016 Q5 Point 6: 4.5 K vs. 1.9 K and Q6 at Point 1 and Point 5

Implications for WP9/ TE-CRG related activities HL-LHC baseline Q5 at 4.5 K Option Q5 at 1.9 K Item when Action Cost/ Pro and cons Work load Before LS2 LS2 Horizontal jumper connection Before LS3 Procure/build 2 new service modules DFBM Modifications of shield working at 1.9 K QRL modification Eliminate the 4.5 K service module Install new service module Pressure-leak test of the QRL New controls system to be installed +20 kCHF Costs in material costs . Fessia HL-TCC 11/02/2016 Q5 Point 6: 4.5 K vs. 1.9 K and Q6 at Point 1 and Point 5

Other work-packaged and groups . Fessia HL-TCC 11/02/2016 Q5 Point 6: 4.5 K vs. 1.9 K and Q6 at Point 1 and Point 5

Implications for other groups and activities HL-LHC baseline Q5 at 4.5 K Option Q5 at 1.9 K Group Action Cost/ Pro and cons WP6b TE-EPC PCs need to be upgraded to 6kA. In LS3 this can be done with limited cost because recovering PCs from the IT in IP1 and IP5 50 KCHF WP12 TE-VSC 2 Beam screen for Q7 length but different aperture 110 kCKF Removal and reassembly of CWT 10 kCHF Modification of the vacuum lay-out warm part 30 kCHF Beam dump line (cryostat design made to be compatible with present routing) 20 kCHF WP13 BE-BI Two extra BPM 80 kCHF Removal and reassembly of BPM cables . Fessia HL-TCC 11/02/2016 Q5 Point 6: 4.5 K vs. 1.9 K and Q6 at Point 1 and Point 5

Implications for other groups and activities HL-LHC baseline Q5 at 4.5 K Option Q5 at 1.9 K Group Action Cost/ Pro and cons EN-EL LS2: new WCC (shortening -20 kCHF) on left side, Re-orienting WCC on R DFBMM warm cables 120kCHF 20 kCHF 2 kCHF LS3: new control cabling for TE-CRG De-connexion and reconnection cables 40 kCHF EN-EL/ TE-MPE DFMB frame displacement Other LS2 displace magnet jacks and DFBM supports and other local services . Fessia HL-TCC 11/02/2016 Q5 Point 6: 4.5 K vs. 1.9 K and Q6 at Point 1 and Point 5

Cost summary and work load and other considerations Baseline 4.5 K Option 1.9 K WP3/TE-MSC 1550 kCHF 1200 kCHF extra value of spare used 350 kCHF 200 kCHF tools for activated units to be shared WP9/TE-CRG including operation 10 years 50->550 KCHF 320 kCHF->620 kCHF Others 422 kCHF 140 kCHF TOTAL 2022 kCHF - 2522kCHF 810 kCHF – 1110 kCHF Work load Mainly TE-MSC, before LS2 and it can be distributed, larger amount of work Mainly TE-CRG, to be performed for LS2 is tight, Less work, BUT ALL ACTIVITIES PART OF THE INSTALLATION PLAN WITH DIRECT IMPACT ON MACHINE START UP Still open for possible optics simplification, modification ALARA Lower radiation to personnel Higher radiation to personnel, but similar to Q5 and Q4 work for Point 1 and Point 5, same tools . Fessia HL-TCC 11/02/2016 Q5 Point 6: 4.5 K vs. 1.9 K and Q6 at Point 1 and Point 5

Considerations on the Q6 at Point 1 and Point 5 Contributions from WP6a: A. Ballarino, A. Jacquemod, V. Parma WP9: S. Claudet, A. Perin, WP15: P. Fessia, B. Vazquez de Prada Presented by P. Fessia

Recall of the issue and plan Analysing two options Baseline: Cooling: the Q6 magnet is cooled from the new QXL line (1.9 K or 4.5 K) Powering: the Q6 magnet is powered from the SC link connected to the PCs in the new UA Option Cooling: the Q6 magnet is cooled from the present QRL line (4.5 K) Powering: the Q6 magnet is powered from the DSL connected the to the PC in the RR The option provide a cost and labour reduction possibility because Reduces the length of the QXL Reduces the length of the SC link and eliminate one circuit from it . Fessia HL-TCC 11/02/2016 Q5 Point 6: 4.5 K vs. 1.9 K and Q6 at Point 1 and Point 5

Analysis path Can the QRL-QXL connection/return module be installed/operated in the option Can the DSL be modified How the RR equipment shall be modified Is the cost saving worthwhile . Fessia HL-TCC 11/02/2016 Q5 Point 6: 4.5 K vs. 1.9 K and Q6 at Point 1 and Point 5

DQR to be temporarily removed to install the new valve module Baseline DQR to be temporarily removed to install the new valve module First QRL module to be de-installed to leave place to the return module . Fessia HL-TCC 11/02/2016 Q5 Point 6: 4.5 K vs. 1.9 K and Q6 at Point 1 and Point 5

Baseline Large vertical volume available in the RR area Change in tunnel section entering the RR area . Fessia HL-TCC 11/02/2016 Q5 Point 6: 4.5 K vs. 1.9 K and Q6 at Point 1 and Point 5

Option The connection/return volume will feature more then 10 valves occupying significant length behind the beam lines in standard tunnel section. It will be necessary to incline the valves and install many ladders jumping over delicate equipment as collimators. It will increase the problems for possible machine lay-out tuning in moving collimators or other equipment . Fessia HL-TCC 11/02/2016 Q5 Point 6: 4.5 K vs. 1.9 K and Q6 at Point 1 and Point 5

Option All cable will need to be rerouted over important length on the wall . Fessia HL-TCC 11/02/2016 Q5 Point 6: 4.5 K vs. 1.9 K and Q6 at Point 1 and Point 5

We propose to stick to the baseline Summary After first visit the advantages in installing the QRL/QXL connection box in the baseline location look evident. This is related to the local tunnel enlargement allowing much better integration and operation We propose to stick to the baseline Clear separation cooling and powering arc to LSS Clear separation of other minor services: compress air warm recovery line Better location for CRG to perform maintenance activity not interfering with machine equipment Complete reorganisation of the RR . Fessia HL-TCC 11/02/2016 Q5 Point 6: 4.5 K vs. 1.9 K and Q6 at Point 1 and Point 5