1. First Status Report on Show Stoppers for PSB Energy Upgrade 11. March 2010 PSB Energy Upgrade Working Group Meeting

2. PSB Energy Upgrade WG 11. March 20102 Beam Dynamics (information provided by G. Rumolo)

3. 3 BR.BHZ Normal configurationPresent+30% (1.98GeV) FIELD STRENGTH (T)0.861.12* PEAK CURRENT (A) Inner Rings40325255* Outer Rings40655515* POWER COMSUMPTION (cold) (kW)4983 Q :  P @  T= 28 K (l/min) (bar) 26 : 1144 : 22  T : @ Q = 26 l/min (K) 2847 Antony Newborough TE/MSC/MNC – PSB Energy Upgrade - 11 th March 2010 BR.QFPresent+30% (1.98GeV) FIELD GRADIENT (T/m)5.607.66 PEAK CURRENT (A)40325255 POWER COMSUMPTION (kW)1627 Q (@  T= 20 K) (l/min) 1220  T (@ Q = 12l/min) (K) 2034 BR.QDPresent+30% (1.98GeV) FIELD GRADIENT (T/m)5.607.66 PEAK CURRENT (A)40325255 POWER COMSUMPTION (kW)1119 Q (@  T= 20 K) (l/min) 814  T (@ Q = 8.3l/min) (K) 2034 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.BHZPresentUpgradeProposed Test Energy (GeV)1.423.6** Field (T)0.861.131.8 Current (kA)45.510 Coil Force on retaining plates (kN)3254138 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

4. PSB Energy Upgrade WG 11. March 20104 B-Field Measurements (information provided by M. Buzio)

5. 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 Control If 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. 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 System The 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.

7. PSB Energy Upgrade WG 11. March 20107 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. 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. 11/03/2010Serge Pittet8 TE EPC

9. PSB Energy Upgrade WG 11. March 20109 Vacuum Systems

10. PSB Energy Upgrade WG 11. March 201010 Instrumentation (information provided by J. Tan) Still gathering information from BI experts

11. 11 B. Mikulec / Commissioning Operational Scenarios BeamsDestinationExtraction Energy NORMGPS, NORMHRS, STAGISO ISOLDE1.4 GeV and rarely 1 GeV all other usersPS 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

12. PSB Energy Upgrade WG 11. March 201012 Extraction and Transfer/PS Injection (information provided by J. Borburgh)

13. 13 PSB Energy upgrade: Controls viewpoint 1.4 -> 2 Gev energy upgrade –At 1 st 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.

14. PSB Energy Upgrade WG 11. March 201014 Electrical Systems

15. 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. 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. 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-134/135/136/137MUNCK 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

18. PSB Energy Upgrade WG 11. March 201018 Survey No responsibility assigned yet