1 / 20

Some thoughts about resistive D1 Phase I upgrade options

Some thoughts about resistive D1 Phase I upgrade options. LIUWG 29/11/07 M. Karppinen AT/MEL. Acknowledgements: S. Fartoukh, F. Bordry, J. Inigo-Golfin, R. Ostojic, S.Roesler, T. Zickler, J-P. Koutchouk, D.Tommasini,…. Outline. Performance goals and options Present D1

monet
Télécharger la présentation

Some thoughts about resistive D1 Phase I upgrade options

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Some thoughts about resistive D1 Phase I upgrade options LIUWG 29/11/07 M. Karppinen AT/MEL Acknowledgements: S. Fartoukh, F. Bordry, J. Inigo-Golfin, R. Ostojic, S.Roesler, T. Zickler, J-P. Koutchouk, D.Tommasini,…

  2. Outline • Performance goals and options • Present D1 • Upgrade based on recycling (parts of) existing magnets • Time estimate • Radiation aspects • Possible 2nd gen. MBXW • Scaling Performance & Cost • Summary M. Karppinen AT/MEL

  3. Performance goals and options • Based on Triplet aperture of 130 mm => Longer Triplet, higher , shorter D1/D2 distance, stronger D1, larger gap • Integrated Strength of D1: • +1 Tm => +15-20 mm Triplet aperture • 24 Tm, if D2-Q4 moved by 16 m away from IP (good for matching the optics to the arcs) • 26.1 Tm, nominal LHC • 29 Tm, if D2 not moved M. Karppinen AT/MEL

  4. Performance goals… • Gap height: • Assuming constant clearance for beam pipe (currently 2 mm) • 105 mm (a priori ≥110), IR5 with Hor X-ing • 115 mm (a priori ≥120), IR1 with Ver X-ing • Good Field Region: • dx = 15 mm • Rr=35 mm • dB/B1 < 3 units 4 M. Karppinen AT/MEL LIUWG 29/11/07

  5. MBXW of D1 in IR1 / IR5 Nominal strength 1.28 T Nominal current 750 A Ultimate current 835 A Magnetic length 3.4 m Gap height 63 mm GFR +/- 41 mm Overall length 3.8 m Yoke length 3.4 m Overall weight 11500 kg Water flow 19 l/min Power dissipation 34 kW M. Karppinen AT/MEL

  6. Scaling the present design 700+ kCHF for new PCs and spares 600 kCHF for new PCs and spares 300 kCHF for new transformers and spares M. Karppinen AT/MEL

  7. Scaling the present design.. 2 x 200 kCHF for new cooling station (5 < dp <25 bar M. Karppinen AT/MEL

  8. Upgrade of existing MBXW Plan A Add 57 mm thick magnetic spacers between half-cores 1400 A, 1.41 T (29 Tm) M. Karppinen AT/MEL

  9. Upgrade of existing MBXW Plan B Buy new half-cores Re-cycle coils 1400 A, 1.41 T (29 Tm) M. Karppinen AT/MEL

  10. M. Karppinen AT/MEL

  11. M. Karppinen AT/MEL

  12. Time estimate for one IR (12 MBXW) M. Karppinen AT/MEL

  13. Radiation aspects Azimuthally averaged residual dose rate (mSv/hr) on the IP5 inner triplet components after 30-day irradiation and 1-day cooling => ~10 mSv/hr Ref: Mokhov et al, LHC PR-633, 2003 M. Karppinen AT/MEL

  14. Radiation.. After several months of cooling => ~2-3 mSv/hr Residual dose rate (mSv/hr) on the IP5 inner triplet vacuum vessel after 30-day irradiation and 1-day cooling and residual dose averaged over the IP1/IP5 quadrupole SC coils (all quads, all layers) vs irradiation and cooling times (bottom) Ref: Mokhov et al, LHC PR-633, 2003 M. Karppinen AT/MEL

  15. *) 24 + 4 spares M. Karppinen AT/MEL

  16. Possible 2nd Generation MBXW *) 24 + 4 spares M. Karppinen AT/MEL

  17. Scaling Performance & Cost • New design • Optimized magnet X-section • 24 + 4 spares = 28 magnets • 29 Tm / D1 • GFR = +/- 50 mm, dB/B1 < 3 units • Inom = 850 A • dp = 4 bars • Does not include: water hoses, electrical cables, water cooled bus bars, internal transport, acceptance tests and magnetic measurements at CERN, installation, commissioning, vacuum chambers, electrical and water supply to the tunnel, interlock system, manpower for survey, equipment for magnetic measurements at CERN and transport vehicles, investment cost for the power converters… M. Karppinen AT/MEL

  18. +10 mm => 810 kCHF +1Tm => 317 kCHF M. Karppinen AT/MEL

  19. +10 mm => 350 kCHF +10 units => 520 kCHF M. Karppinen AT/MEL

  20. Summary • Re-working the existing MBXW magnets: • Residual dose 2-3 mSv/hr (probably pessimistic) • Machine downtime 8-12 months • Very high operation cost • Requires powering and cooling upgrade • New resistive magnets: • Magnet cost around 7 MCHF with the present parameter space • Operation cost significantly lower • Existing powering & cooling • Big saving potential by careful optimization of the performance spec • Lead-time: 1 year for design spec, tendering etc.+ 1 year first delivery + 1 year last delivery • To have the magnets ready in 2012 the work shall commence as latest by 2009 M. Karppinen AT/MEL

More Related