EuroCirCol Plan Overview Daniel Schulte for the EuroCirCol team CERN, June 2015

Introduction D. SchulteEuroCirCol Workplan, CERN, June EuroCirCol has a workplan Deliverables are contractually binding But The plan is somewhat coarse Is not fully synchronised with FCC-hh Need to make a more detailed work plan for us Being better synchronised With enough but not too much detail Somewhat more than now Based on best guesses We all know that delays can happen Will propose some top level constraints

Goals for this Meeting D. SchulteEuroCirCol Workplan, CERN, June The main goals are Agree on the main timeline Some changes are required due to the late EuroCirCol start Synchronisation with FCC-hh Start to prepare an actual workplan Main focus on the period until the FCC week in April 2016 Some more detail on the full period This is our workplan Make the contact between the people and the teams

Overall EuroCirCol Goals D. SchulteEuroCirCol Workplan, CERN, June Main deliverable is the CDR Provide core parts of the CDR lattice and optics designs key component design experimental results on beam screen cost estimate Provide planning for the future R&D Contribute to the outreach Will not go through the milestones and deliverables one by one Mainly the task of the workpackages

EuroCirCol Workpackages D. SchulteEuroCirCol Workplan, CERN, June WP 5: Develop a viable and cost optimised dipole magnet conceptual design WP 4: Develop the beam screen conceptual design and perform tests WP 2: Ensure that the beam screen and magnet design lead to good beam performance WP 3: Ensure that the beam can be used to produce the desired luminosity in the experiments

Stating the Obvious D. SchulteEuroCirCol Workplan, CERN, June EuroCirCol is a part of the FCC-hh study, which is a part of the FCC study We are still in the process of finding the best FCC-hh design  Need to develop and explore different options  Need to make sure that they are viable  Find a balance between too many and too few alternative options  Close interaction between the different teams (also with FCC-hh) Closing loops rapidly  Integration with FCC-hh schedule  FCC-hh design meeting and WP1 should help you in this process

Arc Design Interaction D. SchulteEuroCirCol Workplan, CERN, June Beam quality/stability Injector Beam screen design Magnet designs Lattice design Injection energy Vacuum quality Impedance Electron cloud Aperture Heat load Field errors Field strengths Field errors Beta-function Temperature

WP 1 D. SchulteEuroCirCol Workplan, CERN, June Study management 1.2 Quality management 1.3 Communication, dissemination and outreach Providing information about EuroCirCol and FCC to society 1.4 Knowledge and innovation management Transfer of innovation to society 1.5 Coordinate technical scope Ensure coherent evolution of overall collider design and key parameters 1.6 Develop implementation and cost scenarios Develop overall cost scenario This ensures that the results of all FCC-hh development is injected into EuroCirCol Technical integration with FCC-hh Also provides some links beyond EuroCirCol

WP 2 D. SchulteEuroCirCol Workplan, CERN, June Workpackage coordination (CEA, CERN, A. Chance, B. Holzer) 2.2 Develop optimised arc lattice (CEA, CERN, ?, B. Holzer) 2.3 Study dynamic aperture (CEA, CERN, ?, B. Holzer) 2.4 Study single beam current limitations (TUD, CERN, ?, B. Salvant) 2.5 Understand and control impact of electron cloud effect (KEK, CERN, K. Ohmi, G. Rumolo) 2.6 Develop optics concept for collimation system (CNRS, CERN, ?, S. Redaelli, R. Tomas) Reporting to FCC-hh design meeting Collimation and absorber concepts Lead: S. Redaelli (CERN) Single beam collective effects Lead: O. Boine-Frankenheim (TUD) CERN contacts: B. Salvant, G. Rumolo Lattice design and integration and single particle dynamics Lead: A. Chance (Saclay), CERN contact: B. Holzer

WP3: Interaction Region D. SchulteEuroCirCol Workplan, CERN, June m 30m 80m Q1 TAS TAS Q1 7.5m 3.1 Workpackage coordination (UOXF, CERN, A. Seryi, R. Tomas) 3.2 Develop interaction region lattice (UOXF, CERN, ?, R. Tomas) 3.3 Design machine detector interface (STFC, INFN, CERN, R. Appleby, M. Boscolo, W. Riegler, A. Ball, H. Burkhardt) 3.4 Study beam-beam interactions (EPFL, CERN, ?, W. Herr, X. Buffat) Report to FCC-hh design meeting Machine detector interface Lead: W. Riegler, A. Ball (CERN) Contact: H. Burkhardt (CERN) Interaction region and final focus design Lead: A. Seryi (UOXF) CERN contact: R. Tomas (CERN) Beam-beam collective effects and dynamic aperture Lead: L. Rifkin (EPFL) CERN contact: W. Herr, X. Buffat (CERN)

WP 4 D. SchulteEuroCirCol Workplan, CERN, June Workpackage coordination (ALBA, CERN, F. Perez, P. Chiggiato) 4.2 Study beam induced vacuum effects (ALBA, CERN) 4.3 Mitigate beam-induced vacuum effects (STFC, CERN) 4.4 Study vacuum stability at cryogenic temperatures (INFN, CERN) 4.5 Develop conceptual design for cryogenic beam vacuum system (CERN, CIEMAT) 4.6 Measurements on cryogenic beam vacuum system prototype (KIT, INFN, CERN) LHC beamscreen The beamscreen design is very involved and needs tight link to WP 2 and WP 5 as well as to other technical FCC activities Contains also an experimental programme, which requires contacts to the owners of the facilities

WP 5 D. SchulteEuroCirCol Workplan, CERN, June Workpackage coordination (CERN, D. Tommasini) 5.2 Study accelerator dipole magnet design options (CEA, CERN, KEK) 5.3 Develop dipole cost model (CERN, CEA, CIEMAT) 5.4 Develop electromagnetic design (INFN, CIEMAT, UT) 5.5 Develop mechanical engineering design (CIEMAT, CEA, INFN, UT, UNIGE) 5.6 Devise quench protection concept (TUT, INFN) Strong link to WP 2 and FCC-hh design meeting T magnet development programme

Note on Meetings D. SchulteEuroCirCol Workplan, CERN, June FCC-hh design meeting Design progress Design choices Representation of all workpackages and all tasks of WP 2+3 INDICO link: Specific FCC-hh meetings For the FCC-hh workpackages Should be used for the EuroCirCol workpackages 2 and 3 and tasks Machine detector interface Interaction region design Arc design and lattice integration … Also meetings for magnets and vacuum systems exist

FCC Study time line towards CDR D. SchulteEuroCirCol Workplan, CERN, June Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4 Explore options “weak interaction” Report Study plan, scope definition FCC Week 2018  contents of CDR CDR ready FCC Week 2015: work towards baseline conceptual study of baseline “strong interact.” FCC Week 17 & Review Cost model, LHC results  study re-scoping? Elaboration, consolidation FCC Week 2016 Progress review

FCC-hh Timeline D. SchulteEuroCirCol Workplan, CERN, June /2015 4/2015 1/2016 2/2016 3/2016 4/2016 1/2017 2/2017 3/2017 4/2017 1/2018 2/2018 3/2018 4/2018 1/2019 2/2019 2/2015 3/2019 Development of integrated baseline Improved, final baseline available Dipoles have been chosen Rescoping based on LHC results? Intermediate baseline available List of alternatives to be considered CDR ready Writing R&D definition Work Final design fully evaluated Final performance studies Editing R&D report ready

Adjusted Meetings to FCC Timeline D. SchulteEuroCirCol Workplan, CERN, June /2015 4/2015 1/2016 2/2016 3/2016 4/2016 1/2017 2/2017 3/2017 4/2017 1/2018 2/2018 3/2018 4/2018 1/2019 2/2019 2/2015 3/2019 Development of integrated baseline Final baseline Choice of dipoles CDR ready Work Writing Final performance studies Design ready and evaluated Work Intermediate baseline available List of alternatives to be considered

Matching EuroCirCol Design (WP 1) D. SchulteEuroCirCol Workplan, CERN, June /2015 4/2015 1/2016 2/2016 3/2016 4/2016 1/2017 2/2017 3/2017 4/2017 1/2018 2/2018 3/2018 4/2018 1/2019 2/2019 2/2015 3/2019 Development of integrated baseline Improved, final baseline available Dipoles have been chosen Intermediate baseline available List of alternatives to be considered CDR ready Writing Step 1 Step 2 Final design fully evaluated Final performance studies Editing D 1.5 CDR (47) D 1.1 Preliminary baseline parameters (4) MS 12 Baseline parameters (12) MS 30 Cost baseline (46) D 1.3 Layout and parameters (27)

Further Workplan D. SchulteEuroCirCol Workplan, CERN, June The workpackages should now develop their workplan The FCC-hh and EuroCirCol workplan needs to follow the same rhythm The deliverables and milestones of EuroCirCol had actually been defined with this in mind Plan according to annual meetings (FCC weeks) and FCC-hh milestones Assume one intermediate meeting between FCC weeks Mainly focus on the work done during these ~6 months periods Who will do what in each period? Focus on the first and second period Try to use the EU deliverable and milestones Mostly the FCC-hh design development should guarantee them

Generic Workplan for Each Task D. SchulteEuroCirCol Workplan, CERN, June /2015 4/2015 1/2016 2/2016 3/2016 4/2016 1/2017 2/2017 3/2017 4/2017 1/2018 2/2018 3/2018 4/2018 1/2019 2/2019 2/2015 3/2019 Development of integrated baseline Improved, final baseline available Dipoles have been chosen Intermediate baseline available List of alternatives to be considered CDR ready Writing Work Final design fully evaluated Final performance studies/optimisation Editing R&D definition R&D report ready Baseline parameters and layout available Intermediate meetings

Baseline Parameters in September D. SchulteEuroCirCol Workplan, CERN, June /2015 4/2015 1/2016 2/2016 3/2016 4/2016 1/2017 2/2017 3/2017 4/2017 1/2018 2/2018 3/2018 4/2018 1/2019 2/2019 2/2015 3/2019 D 1.1 Preliminary baseline parameters (4) WP 2 input to baseline (September 15) WP 3 input to baseline (September 15) WP 3 input to baseline (September 15) WP 4 input to baseline (September 15) WP 4 input to baseline (September 15) WP 5 input to baseline (September 15) WP 5 input to baseline (September 15) Contributions welcome, basic material is available

Annual Meeting 1 D. SchulteEuroCirCol Workplan, CERN, June /2015 4/2015 1/2016 2/2016 3/2016 4/2016 1/2017 2/2017 3/2017 4/2017 1/2018 2/2018 3/2018 4/2018 1/2019 2/2019 2/2015 3/2019 Baseline specifications for magnets(10) Baseline parameters (12) Preliminary arc optics and lattices files (11) Preliminary EIR optics and lattices files (11) Arc design options (12) EIR design options (15) Beam screen model (12) Overview of magnet design options (17) Overview of collimation concepts (18) Prop. coatings against electron-cloud (18) Beam screen option overview

Example: WP 2 Deliverables D. SchulteEuroCirCol Workplan, CERN, June D2.1 : Overview of arc design options [12] Description of arc design options and collider layouts to be taken into consideration for further detailed studies. Summary of the relative merits, requirements, constraints and impacts of each of the options to be considered. Classification according to estimated value and realization risk. D2.2 : Overview of collimation concepts [18] Description of collimation system concept options to be taken into consideration for further detailed studies. Summary of the relative merits, requirements, constraints and impacts of each of the options to be considered. Classification according to merit and realization risk. Basis for baseline and alternatives to be studied Relative merits contains dynamic aperture, impedance effects and mitigation, electron cloud, … Magnet specifications have to be agreed with the magnet experts beforehand (e.g. D 5.1) Beamscreen agreed with WP 4 Basis for baseline and alternatives to be studied Relative merits contains efficiency, impedances, … Agreement with interaction region beam sty clear (D 3.1) Would need this information in April 2016 for FCC annual meeting I.e. after 10 months

Example: WP 5 Deliverables D. SchulteEuroCirCol Workplan, CERN, June D5.1 : Overview of magnet design options [17] Description of relevant design options to be considered for further detailed studies. Summary of the relative merits, requirements, constraints and impacts of each of the options. Classification of the options according to merits and realization risks. Basis for baseline and alternatives to be studied This needs to be consistent with the lattice design (D 2.1) and the beamscreen design Would need this information in April 2016 for FCC annual meeting I.e. after 10 months

Annual Meeting 1 D. SchulteEuroCirCol Workplan, CERN, June TypeContentMontDelivered to EU by MS 8Baseline specifications and assumptions for accelerator magnet 10April 1, 2016 MS 9Preliminary arc optics and lattice files11May 1, 2016 MS 10Preliminary EIR optics and lattice files11May 1, 2016 MS 12 Collider baseline parameters 12June 1, 2016 MS 13Beam screen model heat load and photo-electrons density analysis 12June 1, 2016 D 2.1Overview of arc design options12June 1, 2016 D 3.1Overview of EIR design options15September 1, 2016 D 5.1Overview of magnet design options17November 1, 2016 D 2.2Overview of collimation concepts18December 1, 2016 MS 16Proposal of coatings to mitigate electron-cloud effects18December 1, 2016 Proposed: Internal milestone for all: April 1, 2016

Annual Meeting 2 D. SchulteEuroCirCol Workplan, CERN, June /2015 4/2015 1/2016 2/2016 3/2016 4/2016 1/2017 2/2017 3/2017 4/2017 1/2018 2/2018 3/2018 4/2018 1/2019 2/2019 2/2015 3/2019 Id. of pref. dipole design options (26) Collider complex layout and param. (27) Requ. arc design opt. on WP 3, 4, 5 (27) Prelim. EIR design baseline (29) Prelim. beam screen eng. design (29) Requ. of EIR design options on WP 2, 4, 5 (23) Prelim. arc design baseline (32) Specs for conductors (34) Prel. beam screen concept. design (22) Prelim. specs for conductors (22)

For Reference: WP 5 Deliverables D. SchulteEuroCirCol Workplan, CERN, June D5.2 : Identification of preferred dipole design options and cost estimates [26] Detailed description of the preferred baseline design with its expected performances. Analysis of the individual merits and risks of the different, initial design options and justification for selection. The deliverable includes expected field levels, field errors and a cost estimate, which serve as input for the arc design consolidation. A summary of the technical expert advisory committee review is included. Description of requirements, constraints and impacts on environment, ancillary systems, arc, interaction region and cryogenic beam vacuum system. This should fix the final baseline to be optimsied This needs to be consistent with lattice design and requirements (D 2.3 and D 2.4) and the beamscreen design Would need this information in April 2017 for FCC annual meeting I.e. after 20 months

Annual Meeting 2 D. SchulteEuroCirCol Workplan, CERN, June TypeContentMonthDelivered to EU by MS 17Requirements and constraints of EIR design options on WP 2, WP 4, WP 5 23May 1, 2017 D 5.2Identification of preferred dipole design options and cost estimates 26August 1, 2017 D 1.3Collider complex layout and parameters27September 1, 2017 D 2.3Requirements and constraints of arc design options on WP 3, WP 4, WP 5 27September 1, 2017 D 3.2 Preliminary EIR design baseline 29November 1, 2017 D 4.3Preliminary beam screen and beam pipe engineering design 29November 1, 2017 D 2.4Preliminary arc design baseline32February 1, 2018 MS 32Specifications for conductors and proposed conductor configurations 34April 1, 2018 Proposed: Internal milestone for all: April 1, 2017 For MS 34 and D 4.3 with reduced scope

Annual Meeting 3 D. SchulteEuroCirCol Workplan, CERN, June /2015 4/2015 1/2016 2/2016 3/2016 4/2016 1/2017 2/2017 3/2017 4/2017 1/2018 2/2018 3/2018 4/2018 1/2019 2/2019 2/2015 3/2019 Prelim. arc design incl. optimized and int. lattice deck (44) Analysis of beam induced vacuum effects (36) Prelim. EIR design including optimized lattice deck (44) Prelim. collim. system design concept and perf. Estimate (45) Preliminary cryogenic beam-vacuum system design (45) High-field accelerator dipole conceptual design report (46) Cost model for dipole magnet (39) Cost baseline (46) CDR (47) A lattice deck A final list of component functional specifications A report describing the system and its performance

For Reference: WP 2 Deliverables D. SchulteEuroCirCol Workplan, CERN, June D2.5 : Preliminary arc design including optimized and integrated lattice deck [44] Annotated beam optics and lattice files with specifications of the required magnet parameters (strengths and apertures) including consolidated position and element characteristics. Specification of the required magnet types and quantities including magnet field quality specifications. D2.6 : Preliminary collimation system design concept and performance estimate [45] Description of the collimation system baseline design including a list of beam-line elements (type, description, quantity, physical element characteristics). Description of the assumptions, requirements and constraints on the infrastructure and services. Summary of the expected performance. Basis for CDR writing and cost This requires reports on dynamic aperture, impedance effects and mitigation, electron cloud, … Magnet specifications have to be agreed with the magnet experts beforehand Basis for CDR writing and cost This requires reports on impedance effects, … Aperture must be consistent with interaction region design Magnet specifications have to be agreed with the magnet experts beforehand Would need this information in April 2018 for FCC annual meeting I.e. after 34 months

Annual Meeting 3 D. SchulteEuroCirCol Workplan, CERN, June TypeContentMonthDelivered to EU by D 4.4Analysis of beam induced vacuum effects36June 1, 2018 D 5.3Cost model for dipole magnet39September 1, 2018 D 2.5Preliminary arc design including optimized and integrated lattice deck 44February 1, 2019 D 3.3Preliminary EIR design including optimized lattice deck44February 1, 2019 D 2.6Preliminary collimation system design concept and performance estimate 45March 1, 2019 MS 29Preliminary cryogenic beam-vacuum system design45March 1, 2019 MS 32High-field accelerator dipole conceptual design report46April 1, 2019 MS 30Cost baseline46April 1, 2019 D 1.5Preliminary Conceptual Design Report47May 1, 2019 Proposed goal: Internal milestone for all: April 1, 2018 MS 30: November 1, 2018 D 1.5: December 1, 2018

Final Meeting D. SchulteEuroCirCol Workplan, CERN, June /2015 4/2015 1/2016 2/2016 3/2016 4/2016 1/2017 2/2017 3/2017 4/2017 1/2018 2/2018 3/2018 4/2018 1/2019 2/2019 2/2015 3/2019 Plan for use and dissemination of foreground, technical gap analysis (41) Manufacturing folder for reference design dipole short model (46) WP 5 report on recommended follow-up R&D (47) WP 4 report on recommended follow-up R&D (47) WP 3 report on recommended follow-up R&D (47) WP 2 report on recommended follow-up R&D (47)

Final Meeting D. SchulteEuroCirCol Workplan, CERN, June TypeContentMonth D 1.4Plan for use and dissemination of foreground, technical gap analysis41 D 5.4Manufacturing folder for reference design dipole short model46 MS 33Report on recommended follow-up R&D47 MS 34Report on recommended follow-up R&D47 MS 35Report on recommended follow-up R&D47 MS 36Report on recommended follow-up R&D47

EU Reporting D. SchulteEuroCirCol Workplan, CERN, June /2015 4/2015 1/2016 2/2016 3/2016 4/2016 1/2017 2/2017 3/2017 4/2017 1/2018 2/2018 3/2018 4/2018 1/2019 2/2019 2/2015 3/2019 Final Report (48+) Periodic Report 3 (48) Periodic Report 2 (36) Periodic Report 1 (18) Formal progress reports to EU  You will have to contribute to the area of your work Internal progress monitoring is essential (coordination committee) Discussion of technical progress in the FCC-hh design and other meeting Annual report (12)

Some Comments D. SchulteEuroCirCol Workplan, CERN, June

Note: Parameters D. SchulteFCC, DESY, May BaselineUltimate Luminosity L [10 34 cm -2 s -1 ]520 Background events/bx170 (34)680 (136) Bunch distance Δt [ns]25 (5) Bunch charge N [10 11 ]1 (0.2) Fract. of ring filled η fill [%]80 Norm. emitt. [  m] 2.2(0.44) Max ξ for 2 IPs0.01 (0.02) 0.03 IP beta-function β [m] IP beam size σ [  m] 6.8 (3)3.5 (1.6) RMS bunch length σ z [cm]8 Crossing angle [  ’ ] 12Crab. Cav. Turn-around time [h]54 We have two preliminary parameter sets Beam current is the same But luminosity differs They have the same current but the ultimate set has more challenging collision parameters The “baseline” in EuroCirCol should be capable to run with the ultimate parameters

Choices to be Made D. SchulteEuroCirCol Workplan, CERN, June Which injection scenarios do we maintain? Options considered SPS LHC Injector in FCC tunnel They are all associated with a different injection energy  Requires different beamscreen, magnet and lattice designs Which circumferences do we consider? A design required for each option Which temperatures do we consider for the main dipoles? Impacts beam screen and vacuum design and consequently beam dynamics Can impact magnet aperture requirements Will try to review these Site reviewed next week

WP 4 Experimental Programme D. SchulteEuroCirCol Workplan, CERN, June /2015 4/2015 1/2016 2/2016 3/2016 4/2016 1/2017 2/2017 3/2017 4/2017 1/2018 2/2018 3/2018 4/2018 1/2019 2/2019 2/2015 3/2019 Future R&D (47) Prel. design (45-> 41) Vacuum analys. (36-> 33) Prelim. Eng. design (29) Measurement (28) Vacuum stab. (22) Model (12->10) Ex. operational (15) Coating (18->10) Experimental programme needs a more explicit schedule to make sure components and experimental space and time are available Prelim. concept. design (22)

Beamscreen Design D. SchulteEuroCirCol Workplan, CERN, June We have a promising candidate under development First priority should be to fully qualify the candidate This will force us to develop all the tools Important for WP 5 Evaluation of impedance (WP 2) Evaluation of electron cloud (in particular impact on beam) (WP 2) Vacuum and temperature window (WP 4) To determine inlet and outlet temperature of cooling How can we address the mechanical risk in a quench? (WP 4) We can then develop further options in a staggered fashion e.g. including photon stops or for different apertures or magnet temperatures

Example Points for September D. SchulteEuroCirCol Workplan, CERN, June Evaluation of arc impedance at injection and impact on beam (WP 2+WP 4) Have to define which impedance is acceptable Have to understand mitigation methods at preliminary level Verify thickness of copper layer, impact of pumping holes, … Impact of electron cloud on the beam Which crossing angle is required due to beam-beam effects? For different L* First conclusion on field quality (WP 2 + WP 5) Have some preliminary numbers Can use it to setup and debug full dynamic aperture machinery Can expect better field quality numbers in September Exploration of optimum L* What is the best for aperture and beta-reach?

Example Points for September D. SchulteEuroCirCol Workplan, CERN, June Distance between experiments (WP 2 + WP 3) Background from one experiment into the next Considerations on shielding the beam line from collision debris Energy collimation (WP 2) Scaled lattice Evaluation of relative difficulty Modification of scaled lattice Exploration of different collimation system layout options (WP 2 + collimation) combined beta- and energy collimation combined extraction and beta-collimation pros and cons of separate collimation lines prioritisation of options for further studies Establish aperture definition for collimation system Define injection and extraction lines (with help from outside of EuroCirCol)

Conclusion D. SchulteEuroCirCol Workplan, CERN, June Need to make a more detailed work plan Describe who does what and when Action item for the workpackges EuroCirCol has strong dependencies between the workpackages and to work outside of EuroCirCol  Good communication is essential  Close the loop permanently  Full integration into overall study  Yearly meetings are to finalise designs EuroCirCol has started slightly later than foreseen  Following the FCC-hh schedule will ensure EU deliverables and milestones  Should agree on this principle

D. SchulteEuroCirCol Workplan, CERN, June

Proposed WP1 Design Timeline D. SchulteEuroCirCol Workplan, CERN, June /2015 4/2015 1/2016 2/2016 3/2016 4/2016 1/2017 2/2017 3/2017 4/2017 1/2018 2/2018 3/2018 4/2018 1/2019 2/2019 2/2015 3/2019 D 1.1 Preliminary baseline parameters (4) MS 12 Baseline parameters (12->11) D 1.5 CDR (47-> 43) D 1.5 CDR (47-> 43) D 1.4 Technical gap (41) MS 30 Cost baseline (46-> 42) D 1.3 Layout and parameters (27->23) Internal milestone (FCC-hh) Draft for discussion at workshop Final document for EU

Yearly Meeting 1: WP 3 Deliverables D. SchulteEuroCirCol Workplan, CERN, June D3.1 : Overview of EIR design options [15] Description of EIR design options and collider layouts to be considered for further detailed studies. Summary of the relative merits, requirements, constraints and impacts of each of the options to be considered. Classification according to estimated value and realization risk. Basis for baseline and alternatives to be studied This needs to be consistent with D 2.1 and D 2.2 Collimation gap and dynamic aperture in EIR Working point … Relative merits contains losses in final triplets, MDI issues, beam-beam, … Magnet specifications have to be agreed with the magnet experts beforehand

Yearly Meeting 1: WP4 Deliverables D. SchulteEuroCirCol Workplan, CERN, June D4.1 : Analysis of vacuum stability at cryogenic temperature [22] Description of simulation environment and assumed input parameters. Description of samples and existing prototypes used as baseline. Documentation of vacuum stability and adsorption isotherms at different beam screen operating temperature ranges from simulations and laboratory tests. Need Basis for baseline and alternatives to be studied Relative merits contains dynamic aperture, impedance effects and mitigation, electron cloud, … Magnet specifications have to be agreed with the magnet experts beforehand (e.g. D 5.1)

Yearly Meeting 2: WP 2 Deliverables D. SchulteEuroCirCol Workplan, CERN, June D2.3 : Requirements and constraints of arc design options on WP 3, WP 4, WP 5 [27] Estimates of requirements and limitations imposed by the options onto magnet field levels and qualities, intensity and energy limitations and physical constraints onto the experimental insertion region and onto the cryogenic beam vacuum system. D2.4 : Preliminary arc design baseline [32] Description of the arc baseline design including a list of beam-line elements (type, description, quantity, physical element characteristics). Description of the assumptions taken, requirements and constraints imposed onto the infrastructure and infrastructure services. This should fix the final baseline These are specifications for the magnets and the beamscreen already agreed with the other workpackages It requires input from dynamics aperture, impedances, electron cloud, etc. It should cover all the lattice design This describes the new baseline and its performance

Yearly Meeting 2: WP 2 Deliverables D. SchulteEuroCirCol Workplan, CERN, June D2.3 : Requirements and constraints of arc design options on WP 3, WP 4, WP 5 [27] Estimates of requirements and limitations imposed by the options onto magnet field levels and qualities, intensity and energy limitations and physical constraints onto the experimental insertion region and onto the cryogenic beam vacuum system. D2.4 : Preliminary arc design baseline [32] Description of the arc baseline design including a list of beam-line elements (type, description, quantity, physical element characteristics). Description of the assumptions taken, requirements and constraints imposed onto the infrastructure and infrastructure services. This should fix the final baseline These are specifications for the magnets and the beamscreen already agreed with the other workpackages It requires input from dynamics aperture, impedances, electron cloud, etc. It should cover all the lattice design This describes the new baseline and its performance

Yearly Meeting 2: WP 3 Deliverables D. SchulteEuroCirCol Workplan, CERN, June D3.2 : Preliminary EIR design baseline [29] Description of the EIR baseline design including a list of beamline elements (type, description, quantity, physical element characteristics). Estimates of the achievable performances at the interaction points. Description of the assumptions taken, requirements and constraints imposed onto the infrastructure and infrastructure services. This should fix the final baseline to be optimsied This needs to be consistent with D 2.3 and D 2.4 Collimation gap and dynamic aperture in EIR Working point … Relative merits contains losses in final triplets, MDI issues, beam-beam, … Magnet specifications have to be agreed with the magnet experts beforehand

Yearly Meeting 2: WP4 Deliverables D. SchulteEuroCirCol Workplan, CERN, June D4.3 : Preliminary beam screen and beam pipe engineering design [29] Drawings of the beam screen and surrounding beam pipe mechanical design as produced for the measurements at the light source. Description of the materials and manufacturing processes used to produce the test element. Need an additional milestone that should fix the final baseline to be optimised This needs to be consistent with the lattice design (D 2.3) and the magnet design (D 5.2)

For Reference: WP 3 Deliverables D. SchulteEuroCirCol Workplan, CERN, June D3.2 : Preliminary EIR design baseline [29] Description of the EIR baseline design including a list of beamline elements (type, description, quantity, physical element characteristics). Estimates of the achievable performances at the interaction points. Description of the assumptions taken, requirements and constraints imposed onto the infrastructure and infrastructure services. This should fix the final baseline to be optimsied This needs to be consistent with D 2.3 and D 2.4 Collimation gap and dynamic aperture in EIR Working point … Relative merits contains losses in final triplets, MDI issues, beam-beam, … Magnet specifications have to be agreed with the magnet experts beforehand

For Reference: WP4 Deliverables D. SchulteEuroCirCol Workplan, CERN, June D4.3 : Preliminary beam screen and beam pipe engineering design [29] Drawings of the beam screen and surrounding beam pipe mechanical design as produced for the measurements at the light source. Description of the materials and manufacturing processes used to produce the test element. Need an additional milestone that should fix the final baseline to be optimised This needs to be consistent with the lattice design (D 2.3) and the magnet design (D 5.2)

Yearly Meeting 3: WP 3 Deliverables D. SchulteEuroCirCol Workplan, CERN, June D3.3 : Preliminary EIR design including optimized lattice deck [44] Annotated beam optics and lattice files with specifications of the required magnet parameters (strengths and apertures) including consolidated position and element characteristics. Specification of the required magnet types and quantities including magnet field quality specifications. Basis for CDR writing and cost This needs to be consistent with D 2.5 and D 2.6 Collimation gap and dynamic aperture in EIR Working point … Relative merits contains losses in final triplets, MDI issues, beam-beam, … Magnet specifications have to be agreed with the magnet experts beforehand

Yearly Meeting 3: WP4 Deliverables D. SchulteEuroCirCol Workplan, CERN, June D4.3 : Preliminary beam screen and beam pipe engineering design [29] Drawings of the beam screen and surrounding beam pipe mechanical design as produced for the measurements at the light source. Description of the materials and manufacturing processes used to produce the test element. D4.4 : Analysis of beam-induced vacuum effects [36] Description of the simulated effects and comparison to the analysis of measurement data taken at the light source. Discussion and conclusion of the effects and description of efficacy, risks and potential impacts of mitigation measures. Suggestion for implementation and future work. Basis for CDR writing and cost Also milestone MS 34 is direct input for the CDR This needs to be consistent with D 2.5 and magnet design

Yearly Meeting 3: WP 5 Deliverables D. SchulteEuroCirCol Workplan, CERN, June D5.3 : Cost model for dipole magnet [39] Description of the model, reference data used as basis, any assumptions, constants and parameters that can be used to tune the benefit versus cost ratio. Major cost drivers and potentials to control costs will be indicated. The model includes three baselines: optimistic, likely and conservative. D5.4 : Manufacturing folder for reference design dipole short model [46] Collection of all drawings, material and element specifications, assembly procedures. Calculation files indicating relevant design and analysis notes. Quantity and cost indications for materials and components required for production. Production quality requirements with tolerances. Basis for CDR writing and cost This needs to be consistent with the lattice design (D 2.5) and the beamscreen design Basis for future work

Beam Screen Design D. SchulteFCC, DESY, May Cost driver because it define magnet aperture Technically challenging and instrumental for beam performance Synchrotron radiation power ~30W/m/beam in arcs (E crit =4.3keV), total 5 MW (LHC 7kW)  Cooling challenge  Vacuum challenge  Impedance challenge  Mechanical challenge  Electron cloud  Cost challenge LHC beamscreen Preliminary choice of beamscreen temperature is 50K  5MW synchrotron radiation => 100MW of cooling power  Good vacuum between 40-60K  Impedance still reasonable

Beam Screen Preliminary Choices D. SchulteFCC, DESY, May Impedance: Minimum radius >13mm Impedance: 0.3mm copper coating Cooling: O(5mm) outer diameter Stress in quench: 1.75mm steel Cold bore and space for helium1.5mm+1.5mm Space for support: O(2mm) Total coil aperture 50mm Complex tradeoff Explore different directions Need some maturity for design to make choice Assumed required magnet aperture: 50mm Temperature: Around 50K

Beam Screen Example Design Concept D. SchulteFCC, DESY, May Many tools for evaluation are in place Can prepare for choice May lead to new questions E.g. orbit stability Novel cooling system to reduce number of valves Magnetic centre location Are vibrations an issue? Limited pumping holes in beamscreen around beam? Example layout Heat transport Vacuum quality Photon distribution R. Kersevan C. Garion L. Tavian, et al.