Proton Plan

*11/09/04*

Accelerator Division

Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory

Editors: Bruce Baller, Eric Prebys, Jeff Spalding

[Executive Summary 3](#__RefHeading___Toc87788280)

[1. Introduction 4](#__RefHeading___Toc87788281)

[1.1 Motivation 4](#motivation)

[1.2 Present Operational Limitations
5](#present-operational-limitations)

[1.3 Strategy 6](#strategy)

[2. Elements of the Plan 8](#elements-of-the-plan)

[2.1 Work Breakdown Structure 8](#work-breakdown-structure)

[2.2 Subprojects 9](#subprojects)

[WBS 1.1 -- Linac Upgrades 9](#wbs-1.1-linac-upgrades)

[WBS 1.1.1 -- Linac PA Vulnerability
9](#wbs-1.1.1-linac-pa-vulnerability)

[WBS 1.1.2 -- Linac Quad Power Supplies
10](#wbs-1.1.2-linac-quad-power-supplies)

[WBS 1.1.3 -- Linac Instrumentation Upgrade
10](#wbs-1.1.3-linac-instrumentation-upgrade)

[WBS 1.2 -- Booster Upgrades 11](#wbs-1.2-booster-upgrades)

[WBS 1.2.1 -- Determination of Booster Repetition Rate Limit
11](#wbs-1.2.1-determination-of-booster-repetition-rate-limit)

[WBS 1.2.2 -- ORBUMP System 11](#wbs-1.2.2-orbump-system)

[WBS 1.2.3 -- Corrector System 12](#wbs-1.2.3-corrector-system)

[WBS 1.2.4 -- 30 Hz Harmonic Upgrade
13](#wbs-1.2.4-30-hz-harmonic-upgrade)

[WBS 1.2.5 -- Gamma-t System 14](#wbs-1.2.5-gamma-t-system)

[WBS 1.2.6 -- Alignment Improvements
14](#wbs-1.2.6-alignment-improvements)

[WBS 1.2.7 -- Drift Tube Cooling 15](#wbs-1.2.7-drift-tube-cooling)

[WBS 1.2.8 -- Booster RF Cavity #20 15](#wbs-1.2.8-booster-rf-cavity-20)

[WBS 1.2.9 -- Solid State RF Power Amplifiers
15](#wbs-1.2.9-solid-state-rf-power-amplifiers)

[WBS 1.2.10 -- Booster Instrumentation Upgrade
16](#wbs-1.2.10-booster-instrumentation-upgrade)

[WBS 1.3 -- Main Injector Upgrades 16](#wbs-1.3-main-injector-upgrades)

[WBS 1.3.1 -- Large Aperture Quadrupoles
17](#wbs-1.3.1-large-aperture-quadrupoles)

[WBS 1.3.2 - Main Injector Collimator
17](#wbs-1.3.2---main-injector-collimator)

[WBS 1.3.3 -- NuMI Multi-batch Operation
17](#wbs-1.3.3-numi-multi-batch-operation)

[WBS 1.3.4 -- Main Injector RF Upgrade
18](#wbs-1.3.4-main-injector-rf-upgrade)

[3. Cost and Schedule 20](#cost-and-schedule)

[3.1 Methodology 20](#methodology)

[3.2 Cost Estimate 20](#cost-estimate)

[3.3 Schedule 22](#schedule)

[3.4 Future Updates to the Plan 22](#future-updates-to-the-plan)

[4. Performance Projection 24](#performance-projection)

[4.1 Operating Modes 24](#operating-modes)

[4.2 Booster Radiation Limit 25](#booster-radiation-limit)

[4.3 PoT Projection 28](#pot-projection)

[References 32](#references)

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc87788280 .anchor}**Executive Summary**

Fermilab is poised to significantly improve our understanding of
neutrino oscillation. The MiniBooNE experiment \[1\] using the Booster
Neutrino Beam (BNB) will confront the puzzling ν~e~ oscillation results
from LSND within the next year. The MINOS experiment \[2\] will detect
neutrinos produced by the NuMI facility in early 2005 to confirm the
presumed ν~μ~ → ν~τ~ oscillation results from Super-Kamiokande, and to
make precision measurements of the mixing parameters. The proposed NOνA
experiment will use off-axis neutrinos from the NuMI facility to detect
ν~μ~ → ν~e~ oscillations. The investment in accelerator upgrades
described in this document will maximize the physics reach of these
experiments.

We present a three-year plan for increasing the proton intensity
delivered to the 120 GeV and 8 GeV neutrino beams, with upgrades to the
Linac, Booster and Main Injector. Once the elements of this plan are
completed, NuMI will accumulate approximately 3.4E20 protons per year.
The 8 GeV beamline will receive approximately 2.2E20 protons per year.
This latter estimate is highly dependent on the performance of the
Booster and other efficiency factors.

The preliminary estimate for the total cost of this plan, including 46%
contingency, is \$34M (\$23M M&S, \$10M labor SWF). The labor cost
estimate includes technical, physicist and project management effort.
Overhead is not included in these estimates.

The plan includes tasks and milestones to address the serious
vulnerability issue with Linac amplifier tubes. Costs are included for
alleviating concerns for the availability of these tubes in the
short-term, and for developing a plan for the long-term. Similarly,
costs are included to determine the repetition rate limitation in the
Booster and to develop a plan to exceed this limit, if appropriate.
These two long-term plans, when accepted, will require significant
addition to the present scope.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc87788281 .anchor}**1. Introduction**

### 1.1 Motivation

With the startup of NuMI in early 2005, the Fermilab program will
include two neutrino beamlines, the NuMI beam at 120 GeV from the Main
Injector and the 8 GeV beam from the Booster which currently supports
the MiniBooNE experiment. For the purpose of this document we refer to
this beam as Booster Neutrino Beam (BNB). The goal of the Accelerator
Division Proton Plan is to maximize the number of protons delivered on
target (PoT) to these two neutrino beamlines in the period up to the
replacement of the present Linac and Booster by the Proton Driver. This
is assumed for the purposes of this document to be in 2015 or later. The
plan includes a series of upgrades in the next three years to increase
intensity and reliability for 10 or more years of operation.

Throughout this period the Linac, Booster and Main Injector will
continue to support the production of antiprotons for Tevatron collider
operation. The Main Injector will continue to play a central role in
collider shot setup and will transfer antiprotons between the
Accumulator and the Recycler. The proton intensity delivered for
antiproton production will be doubled in 2005 using a technique called
slip stacking (described in section 2.2 below). The Proton Plan will
maintain operational compatibility with this antiproton production and
collider operation.

The basis for this plan is the Proton Committee Report of October 2003
\[3\]. This report includes a discussion of the proton demands from the
neutrino, collider and fixed-target programs, and a set of
recommendations and suggestions for increasing proton supply in short,
medium and long time frames. To a large extent the recommendations for
the short time frame have been implemented since the date of the report,
or are currently being implemented. These include the installation of a
collimation system in the Booster to reduce radiation levels, the
installation of one of two large aperture RF cavities (the second is
included in this plan), rearrangement of the Booster doglegs, the
development of slip stacking and cogging between the Booster and Main
Injector (being developed under the Run II Upgrade Plan \[4\]), and the
commissioning of longitudinal and transverse dampers in the Main
Injector (also under the Run II Upgrade Plan). Upgrades to the Beam
Position Monitor (BPM) and Beam Loss Monitor (BLM) systems in the Main
Injector, and the BLM system in the Booster are planned for 2005 in the
Run II Upgrade Plan.

The plan outlined here will implement a specific set of upgrades for the
mid- to long-term time frames, to increase the Booster repetition rate
and the maximum beam intensity in the Booster and Main Injector.

### 1.2 Present Operational Limitations

The current bottlenecks in proton delivery are due to (1) radiation
levels in Booster operation, (2) the repetition rate of the Booster, and
(3) intensity limitation in the Main Injector.

Proton losses in the Booster, leading to radiation damage, activation,
and above ground radiation, have limited the total rate at which protons
can be delivered. This has been the primary limitation since MiniBooNE
began running in 2002. With recent improvements, including the
installation of a collimation system \[5\] and rearrangement of the
extraction chicanes (the "doglegs") \[6\], a maximum of 8E16 protons per
hour has now been achieved. The improvements in this plan will provide a
further increase by almost an additional factor of two.

The Linac and Booster together deliver "batches" of protons at a nominal
intensity of 5E12 protons/batch and at an instantaneous rate of 15 Hz.
However, the Booster must be conditioned by two "pre-pulses" prior to a
beam loaded pulse, so it is operationally advantageous to deliver
protons in 15 Hz "batch trains" following each pair of pre-pulses. The
maximum average repetition rate of the Booster is currently limited to
7.5 Hz by magnet cooling. The upgrades included in this plan will
themselves operate at up to 15 Hz, however it is expected that power
limitations in the RF system will limit Booster operation to 8-9 Hz.
This limit is not well determined. The plan includes an engineering
study to identify limiting components in the RF system or power
distribution system and to propose a scope addition to address them. We
assume a 9 Hz operational limit for the present plan.

The PoT delivered to NuMI will be limited primarily by the amount of
beam that can be loaded into the Main Injector, and the time it takes to
accelerate that beam. The Main Injector has six usable "slots" in which
to load booster batches. One slot is dedicated to antiproton production,
and five to NuMI. Starting in early 2005, slip stacking will be used to
load two Booster batches into one slot for antiproton production. In
this plan, slip stacking will be further developed to load a total of
nine batches for NuMI.

The higher intensity in the Main Injector requires more RF power for
acceleration. The existing RF system can accelerate up to 4E13 protons
\[7\] by modifying the shape of the RF ramp. This will allow five-batch
operation for NuMI, but the plan for slip stacking will require a major
upgrade to the RF system.

Larger batch intensities will result in increased beam loss at the
limiting apertures at the injection and extraction regions of the Main
Injector. These apertures are defined by the Lambertson septa magnets
and nearby quadrupole magnets. This plan includes an upgrade to larger
quadrupole magnets in these regions to keep the losses at acceptable
levels, and the installation of a collimation system.

Other operations concerns focus on reliability rather than performance
limitations. In particular the first stage of the Linac is now 35 years
old, while the second stage was rebuilt in 1993. A reliable Linac is
essential for the entire Fermilab program, and must be assured for
another 10 or more years. Two components are identified as presenting
serious vulnerabilities in the low energy Linac: the RF amplifier tubes
and the quadrupole power supplies. Availability of the amplifier tubes
has been a reliability concern for several years, and presents a very
high risk for maintaining operations. The plan includes effort and M&S
costs in the short- to medium-term to alleviate this concern. Several
proposals have been made to solve this issue for the long-term. This
plan includes an engineering study to recommend a specific course of
action that will then be added to the scope. The quadrupole power
supplies will be replaced in the present plan with supplies based on
those used in the second stage Linac.

### 1.3 Strategy

The subprojects in this plan address three major objectives:

1.  **Increasing the proton delivery from the Booster to NuMI and BNB**

> This is principally achieved by increasing the Booster repetition rate
> (ORBUMP replacement and drift tube cooling upgrade), by increasing
> acceptance, and by improving orbit control.

2.  **Increasing the beam intensity in the Main Injector for NuMI**

> This is principally achieved by developing multi batch operation, and
> slip stacking in the Main Injector, increasing the acceptance in the
> Main Injector to maintain acceptable losses (large aperture quads),
> and increasing the RF power to allow acceleration of the increased
> intensity in the Main Injector.

3.  **Improving operational reliability and radiation limitations**

> In the present scope this includes replacing the quadrupole power
> supplies in the first stage of the Linac, replacing the Booster RF
> drivers, and improving instrumentation in both the Linac and Booster.
> The plan also includes two engineering studies that will define new
> projects to be added to the scope of the plan: the Linac power
> amplifier tubes and the power limitation on Booster repetition rate.

The completion of the projects leads to three main phases in the
operation.

> **Phase 1: January 2005 -- December 2005**
>
> The NuMI beamline will be commissioned. Slip stacking will be
> commissioned for antiproton production. The Main Injector will operate
> with a "2+5" cycle (two batches slip stacked for the collider program
> and five batches for NuMI). The Booster will operate at an average
> rate of 7.5 Hz.
>
> **Phase 2: December 2005 -- December 2006**
>
> Following the ORBUMP replacement and drift tube cooling upgrade, the
> Booster can operate at up to 9 Hz, increasing the beam delivered to
> BNB.
>
> **Phase 3: starting December 2006**
>
> With completion of the RF upgrade in the Main Injector, slip stacking
> will be commissioned for NuMI, and the Main Injector will operate with
> a "2+9" cycle.

The performance in terms of PoT for each of these phases will be
discussed in section 4 below.

In the following section the Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) for
organizing the work on the subprojects in this plan will be described. A
brief description will follow for each of the key elements of the plan,
including motivation and description of the work. Section 3 will
describe the methodology for estimating the cost in M&S and labor and
the schedule for the work, tabulate the costs, and identify major
milestones. Section 4 will describe the model for operational
performance and present predictions for each phase of the upgrade plan.

# 2. Elements of the Plan

### 2.1 Work Breakdown Structure

Personnel in the Linac, Booster and Main Injector departments will
manage and accomplish the programmatic goals outlined in this plan. The
following WBS structure is constructed to reflect the presence of this
existing Division organization.

+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| > WBS             | Description                                      |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| > **1**           | **Proton Plan**                                  |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| > **1.1**         | **Linac Upgrades**                               |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| > 1.1.1           | Linac PA Vulnerability                           |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| > 1.1.2           | Linac Quad Power Supplies                        |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| > 1.1.3           | Linac Instrumentation Upgrade                    |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| > **1.2**         | **Booster Upgrades**                             |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| > 1.2.1           | Determination of Rep Rate Limit                  |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| > 1.2.2           | ORBUMP System                                    |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| > 1.2.3           | Corrector System                                 |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| > 1.2.4           | 30 Hz Harmonic Upgrade                           |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| > 1.2.5           | Gamma-t System                                   |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| > 1.2.6           | Alignment Improvements                           |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| > 1.2.7           | Drift Tube Cooling                               |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| > 1.2.8           | Booster RF Cavity #20                            |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| > 1.2.9           | Booster Solid State RF PA's                      |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| > 1.2.10          | Booster Instrumentation Upgrade                  |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| > **1.3**         | **Main Injector Upgrades**                       |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| > 1.3.1           | Large Aperture Quads                             |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| > 1.3.2           | Main Injector Collimator                         |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| > 1.3.3           | NuMI Multi-batch Operation                       |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| > 1.3.4           | Main Injector RF Upgrade                         |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| > **1.4**         | **Management**                                   |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+

> Table 1: Work Breakdown Structure at Level 3

We anticipate that Level 2 managers will be designated by the Department
Head for each accelerator. The Level 2 managers are charged with
developing and maintaining a cost and schedule plan that is consistent
with the resources available. A subproject manager will be assigned to
each WBS element at Level 3. The Level 3 manager is responsible for
providing an operating system that meets agreed upon specifications. The
Level 3 manager is responsible for cost and schedule control over
design, procurement, fabrication, installation, and commissioning.

A radiation shielding assessment is conducted prior to approving a new
mode of operations for the complex, including the operation of the
Booster and Main Injector as described in section 4. It is not expected
that significant work will required but this cannot be guaranteed until
the assessment is performed. No work for shielding improvements is
included in this plan.

In order to accomplish the Proton Plan goals, specific Run II Upgrade
subprojects must be completed. We rely on existing management systems in
the Run II Upgrade project to accomplish these tasks. They include:

-   Cogging (timing of the Booster and Main Injector) - expected to be
    achieved by January 2005.

-   The Main Injector BPM system and Main Injector and Booster BLM
    systems - to be upgraded in 2005.

### 2.2 Subprojects 

This section includes a brief description of the motivation and
technical scope for each element of the plan, and the basis for the cost
and schedule estimates. The cost and schedule themselves are compiled
together in the next section.

#### WBS 1.1 -- Linac Upgrades

The performance of the Linac is not a significant bottleneck to proton
delivery. Linac projects focus on improving reliability, addressing
vulnerabilities where equipment failure would curtail operations for a
significant period of time, and improving instrumentation to allow
better characterization of the machine.

##### WBS 1.1.1 -- Linac PA Vulnerability

The first stage of the Linac uses five power amplifier tubes. These
tubes fail at a rate of 6-8 tubes per year. Typically about 2/3 of the
failed tubes can be rebuilt by the vendor; the others must be replaced
with new tubes. The availability of replacement tubes has remained
critical since the start of Run II. This lack of spares is a serious
vulnerability, both in the immediate future and for the long term
viability of the experimental program. It is essential that Fermilab
work with the vendor to increase tube production and testing, and build
up an inventory of spare tubes. The scope of work may include
improvements to the operating environment of the tubes at Fermilab,
moving the acceptance testing to the production facility, and working
with the vendor to address any bottlenecks in the production process.

Solutions have been proposed for the longer term. The timescale for
their implementation is of order three years, and the total cost is
likely in the range \$20-40M. A determination of the optimum solution
requires balancing technical merit, cost, reliability and the horizon
posed by the Proton Driver.

This WBS element includes funds to build up an inventory in the
mid-term, and a study to recommend a specific plan of action for the
long term. The scope of work for both of these time scales will be
defined by a task force with expertise in technical, planning and
procurement areas. A report on the mid-term plan will be reviewed by the
Level 1 manager and presented to the Accelerator Division Head by
February 2005 and on the long-term plan by July 2005. The cost included
for the mid-term plan has 100% contingency assigned. The estimates will
be updated in the February report. Once the recommendation presented in
the July report is accepted, the long-term plan may require a
significant increase in scope to the present plan.

##### WBS 1.1.2 -- Linac Quad Power Supplies

The five tanks in the first stage of the Linac, the 200 MHz Drift Tube
Linac (DTL), contain 120 drift tubes*,* each with an internal quadrupole
magnet. Because of the high current required by these magnets, they are
pulsed at 15 Hz to avoid excessive heat. The pulsed supplies are
original to the Linac. While they have operated fairly reliably for the
last 35 years, it is believed that we risk significant downtime in the
next ten years.

We plan to replace the existing supplies with newer, more reliable
supplies, modeled on the pulsed supplies used for the quadrupoles in the
second stage, the High Energy Linac (HEL).

The cost of the project was determined starting with the actual part
cost of the HEL supplies, corrected by 30% for ten years of inflation.
Labor costs were based on the HEL experience. It is planned to build a
prototype station in FY05 to test and develop the controls interface,
then go into full production in FY06 with the goal of installing the new
supplies in the Fall 2006 shutdown.

##### WBS 1.1.3 -- Linac Instrumentation Upgrade

The Linac instrumentation provides insufficient information to diagnose
common problems. In addition, only roughly one third of the BPM's in the
Linac are currently digitized. During the summer of 2000, the MiniBooNE
experiment experienced a reduction of roughly 20% in average weekly
protons, over a period of three months. This was due largely to
stability problems in the Linac.  The goal of this instrumentation
upgrade is to eliminate similar extended performance degradation in the
future.

The instrumentation upgrade began during 2004 with the addition of 10
MHz digitizers to several channels on the pre-accelerator and each RF
station in the Low Energy Linac.  These particular digitizers are not
compatible with the voltage levels in the High Energy Linac, so the plan
is to move the current BPM digitizers to the High Energy Linac, and then
digitize all of the BPM's with the 10 MHz digitizers. This involves a
total of 72 channels of digitization arranged in nine eight-channel
digitizer modules, and requires an additional 33 RF modules for the
BPM's that are not currently instrumented.

The cost estimate for this project is based on the established cost of
building the standard components involved.  The goal is to have the
upgraded instrumentation in place by the end of FY05.

#### 

#### WBS 1.2 -- Booster Upgrades

A set of upgrades are needed to increase the delivery of protons from
the Booster. The most direct improvements are achieved by reducing beam
losses, and increasing the repetition rate. Reliability is improved by
upgrading the RF power amplifiers.

##### WBS 1.2.1 -- Determination of Booster Repetition Rate Limit

It is believed that the RF system in the Booster will limit operation to
an average repetition rate of 8-9 Hz. The nature of the limitation and
the actual value of the maximum sustainable rate are not well
determined. This WBS element includes an engineering review, documenting
and measuring the present system, and identifying components that limit
the rate. This review will be summarized in a report, along with a
recommendation and cost estimate for increasing the repetition rate
beyond the limit. This report will be reviewed by the Level 1 manager
and presented to the Accelerator Division Head by July 2005. If
accepted, the recommendations will be developed into a project and
incorporated into the Proton Plan.

##### WBS 1.2.2 -- ORBUMP System

The Booster uses H- ion injection so that beam can be injected over
several revolutions. A system of four pulsed magnets forms a chicane
that moves the circulating and injected beams radially, such that they
lie on top of one another at injection. The two then pass through a foil
to strip the electrons from the ions, after which they circulate
together. This system is referred to as "ORBUMP".

There are two problems to be addressed with the ORBUMP system:

-   Both the magnets and the power supply suffer from internal heating,
    limiting the total average repetition rate to roughly 7.5 Hz.

-   The system is not powerful enough to fully align the circulating
    beam with the injected beam. This results in horizontal mismatch of
    approximately 1 cm, which significantly increases beam loss at
    injection.

Approximately half of the beam loss in the Booster occurs very early in
the cycle. This is due largely to beam slewing caused by the ORBUMP
system. Improving this situation is a crucial part of the plan.

Technical Division has begun the design of new magnets with water-cooled
conductors and a ferrite core. EE support is designing and building a
new power supply. The magnets and power supply together will be capable
of sustained 15 Hz operation with a field strong enough to fully align
the circulating and injected beam.

The design and fabrication of the magnets and power supply is well
underway. Technical Division has performed a detailed cost estimate.
Construction of the power supply has started. The cost estimate for this
work is based on essentially identical charging supplies.

The goal is for the magnets and power supply to be ready by mid 2005, so
that they can be thoroughly tested and installed during the 2005
shutdown.

##### WBS 1.2.3 -- Corrector System

The Booster has a corrector system comprised of horizontal and vertical
trim dipoles as well as regular and skew quadrupoles in each of the 48
sub-periods. Unfortunately, this system has never been powerful enough
to control either the beam position or tune at high field. Figure 1
shows the beam motion during the acceleration cycle.

This motion leads to beam loss throughout the cycle. By having a
corrector system capable of fully controlling the orbit, we will be able
to reduce this loss significantly. This requires a corrector system
capable of approximately 1 cm of beam motion at all energies

![](media/image1.png){width="3.002083333333333in"
height="2.4895833333333335in"}

\(a\)

![](media/image2.png){width="3.002083333333333in"
height="2.4895833333333335in"}

\(b\)

> **FIGURE 1**: Beam position (mm) through the Booster cycle: (a) the
> orbit around the ring at several times in the cycle, relative to the
> injected orbit, (b) two selected locations as a function of time
> throughout the cycle. This beam motion was used to specify the new
> corrector packages.

Specifications in terms of field strength and slew rate have been
defined \[8\] and the Technical Division is currently working on a
design for the corrector packages. The final choice of dipole,
quadrupole, skew-quad and sextupole components is not yet finalized.
However, it is clear that a factor of four increase in field is needed,
so new power supplies will be required.

Because this system is in the early stages of design, 100% contingency
is assigned to the cost estimates. The estimate for the correctors
themselves is based on the required field and estimated volume of
copper, rules of thumb for estimating cooling lines and insulation and
good faith estimates of the tooling costs. The cost of the power
supplies is based on the estimated power requirements of the magnets
under the assumption that standard power supplies will work. Cabling
will be significant, and this has been included in the cost estimate.

Similarly the schedule estimate is not yet final. The goal is to refine
the cost estimate, complete the design, build a prototype, and begin
procurement for the entire system in FY05. System fabrication would then
be complete by the end of 2006. It is not yet clear if installation can
be completed in the presently scheduled shutdown in summer 2006.

##### WBS 1.2.4 -- 30 Hz Harmonic Upgrade

Simulations and studies have shown that the Booster intensity is limited
by longitudinal bucket area. This will be accomplished by increasing RF
voltage (WBS 1.2.8) and by decreasing the maximum acceleration rate.

The booster lattice magnets are not ramped in the usual sense. They are
connected with a system of capacitors and inductors that form an offset
15Hz resonant circuit. The maximum dE/dt of the beam is fixed by the
resonant frequency and the total acceleration, so reducing the maximum
dE/dt will allow more beam to be accelerated. Modifying the circuit to
add a properly phased 30 Hz component to the resonance \[9\] will extend
the acceleration portion of the curve and reduce the maximum dE/dt.
Figure 2 shows a potential reduction of 35% in the maximum acceleration.

The result of the 30 Hz harmonic will be an increase in the amount of
beam that we can get through transition. We conservatively estimate an
extra 0.5E12 per cycle.

The extra capacitors and inductors required will fit onto the existing
magnet girders without significant modification. The gradient magnet
power supplies (GMPS) will require some modification to allow the
voltage to go negative, and the regulation software will require
significant upgrade to properly control the two phases.

The cost estimate is determined from quotes for the choke and by general
rules for the capacitors, based on their energy. Labor costs are
included for prototyping, testing, final design, and a significant
amount for installation. Estimates have been made for the cost of the
GMPS modification and regulator software upgrade.

The plan is to prototype a complete girder during FY05, and to proceed
with procurement as soon the design is finalized. The modification will
be installed during the 2006 shutdown.

> ![](media/image3.jpeg){width="4.309722222222222in"
> height="3.2319444444444443in"}
>
> **FIGURE 2**: Effect of 30Hz component on the bend field in the
> Booster. Both the existing and modified waves are shown.

##### WBS 1.2.5 -- Gamma-t System

The Booster "gamma-t" system \[10\] consists of 12 quadrupole magnets
that can be pulsed when the beam is just below transition energy. The
effect is to lower the transition energy below the energy of the beam so
that longitudinal emittance blow-up is minimized.

This system has been in place for some time, but it suffers from two
problems:

-   The reduced longitudinal emittance exacerbates coupled-bunch
    oscillations after transition.

-   The quadrupoles are not properly aligned, which causes significant
    closed orbit distortions when they are pulsed.

The first problem can now be ameliorated using the recently commissioned
longitudinal damping system. The quadrupole misalignments can be
calculated and corrected by studying the induced closed orbit
distortions. No hardware upgrades are required to make this system
operational, but study time will be needed and effort in studies and
analysis.

It is expected that the gamma-t system will be required to maximize the
benefit of the RF increase and 30 Hz harmonic upgrades. The goal is to
commission the gamma-t system by the end of 2005.

##### WBS 1.2.6 -- Alignment Improvements

There have been significant alignment problems in the Booster since it
was built, which result in aperture restrictions and high field orbit
distortions. Properly aligning the Booster is critical to achieving its
maximum performance potential. In the 2004 shutdown a 3D laser-tracker
network was completed and as-found measurements were made of the
magnets. This will be used to calculate a series of magnet moves over
the next year, which should maximize the beam aperture and stabilize the
orbit.

Since beam motion is responsible for a significant amount of beam loss,
it is expected that better alignment will contribute to a significant
improvement.

##### WBS 1.2.7 -- Drift Tube Cooling

The original installation of the Booster RF drift tubes (DT) included
stainless steel cooling lines connected to brazed copper tubing on the
inner DT surface. The cooling lines were found not to be necessary at
low repetition rates and were disconnected. Inadequate cooling at high
repetition rate (\> 7.5 Hz) could cause failure of the custom ceramic
blocking capacitors. We have started re-commissioning the cooling system
with two stations completed in the 2004 shutdown and will incorporate
this upgrade work into the cavity maintenance schedule. In the event
that the 30+ year-old copper cooling lines leak, we will install a chill
plate that serves the same function.

##### WBS 1.2.8 -- Booster RF Cavity #20

Until recently the Booster operated with 18 RF stations installed,
although there is space for 20 cavities. An R&D project in 2003-2004
built two large aperture cavities and installed the first in the 19^th^
location to determine the benefit in lowering losses. While the
reduction in losses does not warrant increasing the aperture of the
standard cavities, studies have shown a benefit from extra RF voltage.
It is therefore planned to install the second prototype in the 20^th^
location in fall 2005.

These two new cavities will in principle allow the acceleration of an
additional 0.5E12 protons and will also make the Booster performance
more robust against the failure of the drivers on any one or two
cavities.

The 20^th^ cavity exists and much of the preparatory work for its
installation is done. The major costs over the next year are for the
required modulator, power amplifiers, sold state drivers and bias
supply. These are standard Fermilab technology so the estimate is
considered reliable.

##### WBS 1.2.9 -- Solid State RF Power Amplifiers

Traditionally, the highest maintenance components in the Booster are
tubes in the cascode amplifier in the RF system. These are located in
the tunnel, so servicing them is a problem, particularly given that the
RF cavities can become activated. The PA's will be replaced with a new
system with only the power tube in the tunnel; the driver amplifier will
be similar to those used in the Main Injector and situated outside the
tunnel.

The benefits are threefold:

-   The solid state PA's have a mean time between failures that is three
    to four times longer than the current PA's, so down time will be
    reduced.

-   The cost of the upgrade will be offset by reduced repair costs. At
    the very least, we can eliminate the \$400k/year currently spent on
    replacing tubes.

-   The RF technicians who work the PA's typically receive 100-150 mRem
    per quarter, which is high by Fermilab standards. The new PA's would
    reduce this dose by at least a factor of three.

The upgraded PA's are already in place on two of the Booster cavities.
The remaining upgrade is to be coordinated with the Main Injector RF
upgrade, discussed in the next section. Because these PA's are already
in use, the costs are well established. The Booster RF upgrade will
proceed after the Main Injector Upgrade, with the final installation
during the 2007 shutdown.

##### WBS 1.2.10 -- Booster Instrumentation Upgrade

The existing Booster instrumentation is based on the Fermilab MADC
system. This limits the number of channels that can be monitored on a
particular Booster cycle. Booster reliability could be increased if more
channels could be regularly monitored.

The Hotlink Rack Monitor (HRM) system, developed by the Fermilab
Controls Department \[11\], is well suited to this need. In the initial
phase, this instrumentation upgrade will involve four of these
digitization chassis controlled by two VME processors. This will allow
for 512 channels of digitization, enough for all of the ramped
controller cards, plus a large number of other devices.

Additionally, the BPM readout system will be replaced with a modified
version of the HRM system that is compatible with a turn-by-turn
position digitization. This configuration, which is currently under
development, will be able to digitize 16 channels per crate. Seven HRM
crates will be required to digitize all of the BPM's in the Booster.

This is based on an existing instrumentation system, so the parts and
labor costs are well established.

#### WBS 1.3 -- Main Injector Upgrades

The focus of the Proton Plan is to increase beam intensity in the Main
Injector by developing multi-batch operation and increasing RF power for
acceleration. The beam size will be larger, resulting in unacceptably
high losses in the injection and extraction regions unless apertures are
increased. Radiation surveys of the Main Injector and beam loss studies
indicate that the major sources of beam loss occur at injection, at
transition and at extraction. Losses at transition are thought to be
small compared to the injection and extraction losses. WBS elements
1.3.1 and 1.3.2 will increase the aperture in specific places and reduce
beam tails to reduce these losses.

The existing Beam Position Monitor system will not provide
batch-by-batch information in NuMI multi-batch operation, and the Beam
Loss Monitor system does not allow data-logging for an individual cycle.
These instrumentation systems will be replaced as part of the Run II
Upgrade Plan.

##### WBS 1.3.1 -- Large Aperture Quadrupoles

With large batch intensities delivered from the Booster and particularly
with the advent of slip stacking for NuMI that will result in increased
longitudinal emittance, beam loss and activation become an issue in the
Main Injector. The most critical locations for this loss are at the
quadrupoles near each of the extraction transfer lines, specifically the
NuMI, A1, P1, and abort extraction lines, and the transfer lines to and
from the Recycler.

The aperture will be increased at these locations by replacing the
present quadrupoles with large aperture magnets. The design for these
magnets is complete, and materials have been procured. It is planned
that they will be completed in time for the fall 2005 shutdown.

##### WBS 1.3.2 - Main Injector Collimator

A collimation system will be designed and installed for the Main
Injector to reduce losses around the ring.

The design of this system has not yet begun, but it is estimated that
the cost will be similar to the system recently installed in the
Booster.

##### WBS 1.3.3 -- NuMI Multi-batch Operation

This WBS encompasses on-going work in the Main Injector to achieve
multi-batch mixed mode operation. This work includes studies of
extraction kicker rise and fall times, revised sequencer timing for
NuMI, orbit studies of the NuMI extraction region, potential orbit
distortions due to the NuMI Lambertson magnets, and slip stacking for
NuMI.

The circumference of the Main Injector provides six "slots" for loading
Booster batches. One slot is required for antiproton production, leaving
five available for NuMI. Both programs will rely on schemes that allow
more than one Booster batch to be loaded into a single slot. The
baseline proposal is to use the technique called slip stacking that has
been extensively developed for antiproton production. In this scheme,
two batches are injected into the Main Injector at slightly different
momenta, and therefore different velocities. This causes them to "slip"
together, at which point they are captured by the RF. This allows two
batches to be loaded into a single slot, at the cost of increased
longitudinal emittance. Figure 3 illustrates slip stacking during
studies for antiproton production.

![](media/image4.png){width="2.7881889763779526in"
height="2.4464566929133857in"}![](media/image5.png){width="2.840944881889764in"
height="2.3625984251968504in"}

> **Figure 3:** (Left) Mountain range picture showing merging of two
> Booster batches of protons in the Main Injector. The horizontal axis
> is the time for one orbit. The vertical axis is the number of orbits.
> (Right) Fast time plot during slip stacking -- the green trace is the
> beam intensity (scale 0 to 8E12 protons), the red trace is the 53 MHz
> RF voltage and the black curve shows the beam momentum for
> acceleration from 8 to 120 GeV.

During initial operation, we plan to slip stack two batches for
antiproton production, and then load five batches for NuMI, for a total
of seven batches to be accelerated in the Main Injector. It is expected
that this mode will be operational by April 2005. At this point, the
intensity will be near the limit for the Main Injector RF power, until
WBS 1.3.4 is completed.

During this time studies will continue to develop slip stacking for NuMI
operation.

Once the RF upgrade is completed, nine batches will be slip stacked into
the five NuMI slots. Under this scheme, it will take 12 Booster cycles
to load and slip a total of 11 batches \[12\], two batches for
antiproton production and nine for NuMI. The total intensity accelerated
in the Main Injector will then be over 5.5E13 per cycle.

The estimated effort and time required for the development of slip
stacking is based on the experience with antiproton production.

##### WBS 1.3.4 -- Main Injector RF Upgrade

The existing Main Injector RF system is capable of accelerating 4E13
protons to 120 GeV \[7\], sufficient for initial NuMI operation. With
slip stacking for NuMI, five additional Booster batches will be loaded,
and additional RF power will be required. The goal for this upgrade is
to allow the acceleration of up to 7E13 (providing about 20% headroom
over expected operation).

The Main Injector RF system was designed with two power amplifier ports,
of which only one is used at present. In order to meet the ultimate
needs of NuMI, we plan to build and install a power amplifier for the
second port. This involves a new PA and solid-state driver for each of
the 18 cavities, a new modulator capable of driving the pair, and an
upgrade to the anode supply transformer.

The plan includes a prototype of the upgrade using a spare cavity to
demonstrate that specifications are met, before proceeding with
upgrading the operational stations. This prototype will determine
whether any modifications to the cavities themselves are required. The
prototype phase be completed by mid 2005, and the full upgrade staged a
station at a time through 2006.

The cost and schedule estimates are based on experience building similar
systems. The present modulators will be used as part of the Booster
solid-state upgrade (WBS 1.2.9), and offset the cost of that WBS
element.

# 3. Cost and Schedule

### 3.1 Methodology

The cost and schedule estimates are derived from information provided by
senior engineers, group leaders and department heads. Labor needs are
estimated in terms of effort, and converted to an estimate of salary
with fringe (SWF) by assuming an average cost per technician, engineer
and physicist.

The information is typically tabulated at the component or task level
where an assessment of the technical uncertainty and schedule risk is
used to assign M&S and labor contingency. The contingency assigned is
chosen according to three general categories:

> 20% "off the shelf" procurements, accounts for vendor uncertainties
>
> 50% systems for which a conceptual design exists
>
> 100% systems that are not yet fully specified

All costs are escalated to then-year dollars using 3% escalation per
year. No G&A overhead is included.

### 3.2 Cost Estimate

The costs are rolled up to Level 3 and presented in table 2.

  --------- ----------------------- ------------ --------- ------------ ----------- --------- ------------
  WBS       Description             M&S Base     M&S Cont  M&S Total    SWF Base    SWF Cont  SWF Total

  **1**     **Proton Plan**         **16,513**   **42%**   **23,486**   **6,648**   **57%**   **10,419**

  **1.1**   **Linac Upgrades**      **2,705**    **86%**   **5,039**    **981**     **65%**   **1,622**

  1.1.1     Linac PA Vulnerability  2,000        100%      4,000        300         100%      600

  1.1.2     Linac Quad Power        617          50%       925          628         50%       942
            Supplies                                                                          

  1.1.3     Linac Instrumentation   88           30%       114          53          50%       80
            Upgrade                                                                           

  **1.2**   **Booster Upgrades**    **6,499**    **35%**   **8,765**    **2,777**   **54%**   **4,262**

  1.2.1     Determine Rep Rate      0            0         0            110         50%       165
            Limit                                                                             

  1.2.2     ORBUMP System           256          42%       364          231         47%       338

  1.2.3     Corrector System        629          58%       995          715         57%       1,124

  1.2.4     30 Hz Harmonic          1,031        35%       1,388        279         60%       447

  1.2.5     Gamma-t System          0            0         0            50          100%      100

  1.2.6     Alignment Improvements  0            0         0            60          50%       90

  1.2.7     Drift Tube Cooling      10           50%       15           10          50%       15

  1.2.8     Booster RF Cavity #20   300          50%       450          120         50%       180

  1.2.9     Booster Solid State RF  4,200        30%       5,460        960         50%       1,440
            PA\'s                                                                             

  1.2.10    Booster Instrumentation 73           27%       93           242         50%       363

  **1.3**   **Main Injector         **7,294**    **32%**   **9,661**    **2,026**   **60%**   **3,239**
            Upgrades**                                                                        

  1.3.1     Large Aperture Quads    194          50%       291          406         50%       609

  1.3.2     Main Injector           200          100%      400          150         100%      300
            Collimator                                                                        

  1.3.3     NUMI Multi-batch        0            0         0            250         100%      500
            Operation                                                                         

  1.3.4     Main Injector RF        6,900        30%       8,970        1,220       50%       1,830
            Upgrade                                                                           

  **1.4**   **Management**          **15**       **32%**   **20**       **864**     **50%**   **1,296**
  --------- ----------------------- ------------ --------- ------------ ----------- --------- ------------

TABLE 2: M&S and SWF in \$K at Level 3

The total M&S and SWF cost is shown by fiscal year in table 3.

+------+-----------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----------+
| WBS  | Description           | B   |     |     |     | Total     |
|      |                       | ase |     |     |     | with      |
|      |                       | Est |     |     |     | Co        |
|      |                       | ima |     |     |     | ntingency |
|      |                       | te: |     |     |     |           |
|      |                       |     |     |     |     |           |
|      |                       | M&S |     |     |     |           |
|      |                       | and |     |     |     |           |
|      |                       | SWF |     |     |     |           |
+------+-----------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----------+
|      |                       | F   | F   | F   | To  |           |
|      |                       | Y05 | Y06 | Y07 | tal |           |
+------+-----------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----------+
| *    | **Proton Plan**       | **8 | *   | **3 | *   | *         |
| *1** |                       | ,34 | *10 | ,85 | *23 | *33,904** |
|      |                       | 1** | ,96 | 4** | ,16 |           |
|      |                       |     | 5** |     | 1** |           |
+------+-----------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----------+
| **1  | **Linac Upgrades**    | **1 | **2 | *   | **3 | **6,661** |
| .1** |                       | ,03 | ,09 | *55 | ,68 |           |
|      |                       | 9** | 7** | 0** | 6** |           |
+------+-----------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----------+
| 1    | Linac PA              | 650 | 1,  | 550 | 2,  | 4,600     |
| .1.1 | Vulnerability         |     | 100 |     | 300 |           |
+------+-----------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----------+
| 1    | Linac Quad Power      | 248 | 997 | 0   | 1,  | 1,867     |
| .1.2 | Supplies              |     |     |     | 245 |           |
+------+-----------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----------+
| 1    | Linac Instrumentation | 141 | 0   | 0   | 141 | 194       |
| .1.3 | Upgrade               |     |     |     |     |           |
+------+-----------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----------+
| **1  | **Booster Upgrades**  | **1 | **4 | **2 | **9 | *         |
| .2** |                       | ,94 | ,71 | ,61 | ,27 | *13,027** |
|      |                       | 5** | 8** | 3** | 6** |           |
+------+-----------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----------+
| 1    | Determine Rep Rate    | 110 | 0   | 0   | 110 | 165       |
| .2.1 | Limit                 |     |     |     |     |           |
+------+-----------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----------+
| 1    | ORBUMP System         | 486 | 0   | 0   | 486 | 702       |
| .2.2 |                       |     |     |     |     |           |
+------+-----------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----------+
| 1    | Corrector System      | 583 | 761 | 0   | 1,  | 2,119     |
| .2.3 |                       |     |     |     | 344 |           |
+------+-----------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----------+
| 1    | 30 Hz Harmonic        | 146 | 1,  | 0   | 1,  | 1,835     |
| .2.4 |                       |     | 165 |     | 310 |           |
+------+-----------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----------+
| 1    | Gamma-t System        | 50  | 0   | 0   | 50  | 100       |
| .2.5 |                       |     |     |     |     |           |
+------+-----------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----------+
| 1    | Alignment             | 30  | 30  | 0   | 60  | 90        |
| .2.6 | Improvements          |     |     |     |     |           |
+------+-----------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----------+
| 1    | Drift Tube Cooling    | 20  | 0   | 0   | 20  | 30        |
| .2.7 |                       |     |     |     |     |           |
+------+-----------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----------+
| 1    | Booster RF Cavity #20 | 420 | 0   | 0   | 420 | 630       |
| .2.8 |                       |     |     |     |     |           |
+------+-----------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----------+
| 1    | Booster Solid State   | 0   | 2,  | 2,  | 5,  | 6,900     |
| .2.9 | RF PA\'s              |     | 680 | 480 | 160 |           |
+------+-----------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----------+
| 1.   | Booster               | 100 | 82  | 133 | 315 | 456       |
| 2.10 | Instrumentation       |     |     |     |     |           |
+------+-----------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----------+
| **1  | **Main Injector       | **5 | **3 | *   | **9 | *         |
| .3** | Upgrades**            | ,01 | ,86 | *45 | ,32 | *12,900** |
|      |                       | 0** | 0** | 0** | 0** |           |
+------+-----------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----------+
| 1    | Large Aperture Quads  | 600 | 0   | 0   | 600 | 900       |
| .3.1 |                       |     |     |     |     |           |
+------+-----------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----------+
| 1    | Main Injector         | 250 | 100 | 0   | 350 | **700**   |
| .3.2 | Collimator            |     |     |     |     |           |
+------+-----------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----------+
| 1    | NUMI Multi-batch      | 50  | 150 | 50  | 250 | 500       |
| .3.3 | Operation             |     |     |     |     |           |
+------+-----------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----------+
| 1    | Main Injector RF      | 4,  | 3,  | 400 | 8,  | *         |
| .3.4 | Upgrade               | 110 | 610 |     | 120 | *10,800** |
+------+-----------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----------+
| **1  | **Management**        | *   | *   | *   | *   | **1,316** |
| .4** |                       | *34 | *29 | *24 | *87 |           |
|      |                       | 8** | 0** | 1** | 9** |           |
+------+-----------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----------+

TABLE 3: Total cost (M&S and SWF) by fiscal year.

Some of the costs in this plan will be offset by savings elsewhere.
These include:

-   WBS 1.1.1 Linac PA Vulnerability -- a short-term plan is currently
    within the scope of the Run II Upgrades, with \$500K M&S and \$150K
    labor included for FY05 and FY06 each. These funds will be
    transferred to the Proton Plan.

-   WBS 1.2.2 ORBUMP System -- \$160K M&S and \$300K labor for replacing
    the magnets themselves are included in the Run II Upgrade Plan.
    These funds will be transferred to the Proton Plan.

-   WBS 1.2.9 Booster Solid State PA's -- maintenance costs for the
    present system are \$400K M&S and \$100K labor per year. After
    installation of the new system, a further eight years of operation
    through 2015 will result in a savings of over \$3M.

The total cost offset is then of order \$1.7M transferred from the Run
II Upgrades and \$3M savings in maintenance costs.

### 3.3 Schedule

The schedule is summarized at Level 2 in figure 4, including dates for
major milestones. Lower level milestones will be established for
technical reviews of the major upgrades and to facilitate monitoring
progress.

![](media/image6.wmf){width="5.995138888888889in"
height="3.609722222222222in"}

FIGURE 4: Schedule at Level 3

Many of the upgrades planned can be implemented incrementally, without
significantly impacting the laboratory operating schedule. Others
require installation during shutdowns. The plan assumes the current
Fermilab schedule with shutdowns each summer/fall typically of eight
weeks duration. No additional shutdowns are required.

These cost and schedule estimates are preliminary. For each Level 2
subproject the next stage will be to develop a detailed work plan and
bottom-up estimates for cost, labor and schedule, which will then be
compiled into an integrated work plan. Labor is largely provided from
Accelerator and Technical Divisions. Physicist labor is included in the
costs.

The schedule is subject to labor availability and funding profile. We
show the effect of schedule delay in the performance projections in
section 4.

### 3.4 Future Updates to the Plan

This plan will remain flexible as the subprojects progress from concept
through design. In particular, WBS 1.1.1 will lead to a specific plan
for reducing the operational risk associated with the Linac amplifier
tubes which will be incorporated into the Proton Plan. Similarly WBS
1.2.1 will investigate and document the repetition rate limitations in
the Booster and propose a course of action to extend this limit. The
present scope of these subprojects is to deliver reports with specific
recommendations and cost estimates. These two subprojects may lead to
significant increase in scope in terms of cost and timeframe.

The importance of mitigating the risk associated with the availability
of Linac tubes cannot be overstated. The entire experimental program at
Fermilab through 2015 or beyond is dependent on these tubes.

# 4. Performance Projection

### 4.1 Operating Modes

The proton delivery cycle encompasses the loading and acceleration cycle
of the Main Injector. In this cycle two pre-pulses in the Booster are
followed by a series of batches injected into the Main Injector. Once
loaded and slip stacked these batches are accelerated. During Main
Injector acceleration, the Booster is available to deliver batches to
BNB, subject to the average repetition rate and radiation limits.

At present, it takes 1.37 seconds for the Main Injector to ramp from 8
to 120 GeV and back again. We count cycle time in units of Booster
cycles, a cycle being 1/15 of a second, so the Main Injector ramp
requires 21 cycles. The minimum Main Injector cycle time is then given
by:

*(21+nBatches+nSlip)/15*

Where *nBatches* is the number of Booster batches loaded and *nSlip*
represents any additional cycles required to slip stack batches
together. Antiproton production for the collider requires a minimum
cycle time of about two seconds.

As described in the introduction, the Proton Plan has three distinct
phases of operation:

-   Phase I: This phase begins at the start of 2005. During this phase
    the Booster will be limited by the ORBUMP system to an average
    repetition rate of 7.5 Hz, and the Main Injector will have a
    capacity to accelerate 4E13 protons. This phase will culminate in
    "2+5" operation, in which two Booster batches are slip stacked for
    antiproton production, followed by five for NuMI. The loading
    timeline for this phase of operation is shown in Figure 6a.

-   Phase II: This phase follows the ORBUMP and RF cooling upgrades in
    the Booster, which should increase the repetition rate limit to
    about nine Hz. Because there will be no increase in the Main
    Injector capacity, there will be no change to NuMI operation, but
    the higher Booster repetition rate will allow more protons to be
    available for BNB. This phase begins after the 2005 shutdown.

-   Phase III: Following the completion of the Main Injector RF upgrade
    the Main Injector will have the capacity to accelerate up to 7E13
    protons, enabling "2+9" operation, in which two batches are slipped
    together for antiproton production, and a total of nine batches for
    NuMI. The loading timeline for this scheme is shown in Figure 6b.
    During this period, Booster radiation continues to limit the total
    proton delivery to BNB. Phase III will begin in late 2006.

During Phase III operation 11 batches are loaded into the Main Injector
in a total of 12 Booster cycles. Assuming the same ramp time for the
Main Injector, this results in a total Main Injector cycle time of 2.2
seconds. We are investigating the feasibility of reducing the cycle time
by up to 10%, but will use 2.2 seconds for the purpose of this document.

> ![](media/image7.jpeg){width="4.05in" height="1.8in"}

![](media/image8.jpeg){width="4.121527777777778in"
height="1.8354166666666667in"}

> FIGURE 6: Proton timelines. The tick marks represent 15 Hz Booster
> cycles. The Phase I and II loading schemes are shown in (a). After two
> pre-pulses, two antiproton and five NuMI batches are sent to the Main
> Injector. While these are accelerating as many batches as possible are
> sent to BNB, subject to the limits of average repetition rate and
> Booster losses. Phase III running is shown in (b). The number of NuMI
> batches is increased to nine. In addition to the regular BNB batches,
> some BNB batches may be inserted during NuMI loading if slipping time
> is needed.

The time available for delivering beam to BNB is set by the Main
Injector ramp cycle. The amount of beam delivered in this time is
determined by the limitation on the average Booster repetition rate and
radiation limits.

### 4.2 Booster Radiation Limit

In addition to the increase in repetition rate, it is expected that the
improvements in longitudinal bucket area will allow us to gradually
increase the Booster batch intensity to 5.5E12 over the next two years.
The scale of this increase is based on conservative estimates of the
effects of the RF increase and the 30 Hz harmonic upgrade. It is
expected that with the increase in repetition rate and batch intensity,
beam losses in the Booster will continue to limit the proton output.
This will limit the PoT delivered to BNB.

One of the goals of this plan is to steadily reduce uncontrolled losses
in the Booster, allowing a higher operational limit for proton
throughput. We have not yet taken full advantage of the Booster
collimators. Prior to the 2004 shutdown, the Booster had demonstrated
8E16 protons per hour and was regularly operating at 7E16 protons per
hour, so we set this as our starting point at the beginning of 2005.
However, even at these rates, we were still seeing a significant
reduction in activation around the Booster. Figure 7 shows the change in
activation around the Booster, relative to the levels before the
collimators were installed. There is a 40% reduction around most of the
ring. Based on this, we are confident that after a reasonable period of
optimization, the Booster can deliver 1E17 protons per hour without
exceeding the activation which was seen prior to the collimators.

![](media/image9.wmf){width="4.750694444444444in"
height="3.2305555555555556in"}

FIGURE 7: The effect of collimator system on activation around the
Booster ring.

In order to estimate the benefit of various improvements, we will
calculate the relative increase in acceptance due to each of them. We
will focus on the horizontal plane. The aperture needed by the beam is:

$$A = \delta A + \sqrt{\frac{\beta_{T}\varepsilon_{\text{max}}}{\text{βγ}} + \left( D\frac{\Delta p}{p} \right)^{2}}$$

where *δA* represents aperture loss from all causes and the other
variables have their usual meaning, and the second term represents the
beam size due to transverse and longitudinal emittance. This can be used
to calculate the acceptance as:

$$\varepsilon_{\text{max}} = \frac{\text{βγ}}{\beta_{T}}\left( (A - \delta A)^{2} - \left( D\frac{\Delta p}{p} \right)^{2} \right)$$

We use the fractional change in acceptance as an estimate of increased
beam capacity for each of the proposed improvements.

For our purposes, the following remain fixed:

-   $$\text{βγ} \approx 1$$

-   $A \approx 3\text{.}8$ cm (the physical aperture at high beta and
    dispersion point)

-   $\frac{\Delta p}{p} \approx 0\text{.}\text{13}\text{\%}$ (measured)

The aperture reduction is currently about one centimeter at injection,
due to (1) ORBUMP slewing, (2) alignment problems, and (3) inadequate
beam control.

In addition to the aperture reduction, acceptance has been reduced
because of the parasitic focusing due to the extraction chicanes
("dogleg effect") \[13\], which increases the maximum beta function and
dispersion in the horizontal plane. One of the extraction regions was
modified in 2003 and the second in the 2004 shutdown.

Table 4 shows the calculated improvement in acceptance for each of
planned upgrades.

  ---------------- --------------- ---------- --------- ---------- ---------------- ----------------
  **Condition**    **Date**        ***δA***   **max D** **max      **Acceptance**   **Cumulative**
                                                        beta**                      

  ** **            **Completed**   **(mm)**   **(m)**   **(m)**    **(π-mm-mr)**    **Increase (%)**

  **Start of       \-\--           10         6.2       45.8       15.7             -15
  MiniBooNE**                                                                       

  **Dogleg 3 Fix** Oct-03          10         4.5       40.8       18.4             0

  **Dogleg 13      Oct-04          10         3.8       36.1       21.0             14
  Fix**                                                                             

  **Alignment**    Oct-05          8          3.8       36.1       24.3             32

  **ORBUMP**       Oct-05          5          3.8       36.1       29.5             60

  **correctors**   Oct-06          2          3.8       36.1       35.2             92

  **Ideal**        \-\--           0          3.19      33.7       42.3             130
  ---------------- --------------- ---------- --------- ---------- ---------------- ----------------

> TABLE 4: The effect of various improvements on acceptance. The last
> column shows the cumulative effect relative to the state of the
> machine prior to the 2004 shutdown.

In the following section, we project proton delivery for each of the
beamlines. In the "Design Projection" we assume (1) a base performance
of 1E17 protons per hour prior to these improvements, (2) that actual
improvements are degraded by a factor of two from these calculated
values, and (3) that it takes a year to gain the maximum benefit from
each improvement. A "Fallback Projection" is also presented using a base
of 9E16 and assuming that each improvement has only 25% of the
calculated effect. This leads to the intensity limits shown in Table 5.

  ---------- ------------ --------------- --------------------------------------
  **Date**   **"Design"   **"Fallback"\   **Comment**
             Limit\       Limit\          
             (1E16        (1E16 p/hr)**   
             p/hr)**                      

  1/2006     10.7         9.3             Effect of collimators, dogleg fix,
                                          plus some alignment

  1/2007     13.0         10.4            Alignment and ORBUMP

  1/2008     14.6         11.0            New corrector system
  ---------- ------------ --------------- --------------------------------------

> TABLE 5: Intensity Limits reached at the end of each year for the
> Design and Fallback Projections.

The Booster intensity limit is linearly interpolated between these
yearly values, as shown in figure 8.

> ![](media/image10.wmf){width="5.738194444444445in"
> height="3.9159722222222224in"}
>
> FIGURE 8: Booster output limit which is used as a basis for proton
> projections.

### 4.3 PoT Projection

A model for projecting the PoT delivered to each of the neutrino
beamlines has been developed. The model incorporates the phased approach
outlined above, the Fermilab operating schedule with shutdowns each
summer, and learning curves for the introduction of each operating
phase.

We present here a model that delivers the planned intensity for
antiproton production and maximizes the PoT for NuMI. BNB then receives
the residual capacity of the proton source. Reducing the PoT for NuMI
and providing additional protons to BNB is an option within the overall
program.

We are assuming a 2 month shutdown during August and September of each
year. Beyond that, we are using an overall up time factor of 81%, as
measured for BNB operation from December 2003 to July 2004. The same
factor is applied to both BNB and NuMI.

There is no performance history for extended multi-batch operation, but
it is reasonable to assume that there will occasionally be some
problems. We are therefore including a 90% factor in the NuMI
projections, to allow for operational difficulties. There is also a 90%
efficiency applied to slip stacking for NuMI.

BNB projections are less certain. Under the model described in the last
subsection, we are confident that the radiation limit in the Booster
will allow sufficient protons for antiproton production and NuMI
operation. The beam available to BNB will then be determined by the
excess Booster capacity beyond these needs. The projection for BNB is
therefore extremely sensitive to the Booster output limit and
fluctuations in losses.

Our discussion in the last subsection focused on the peak capacity of
the Booster. For our projections, we use average proton rates based on
operating experience during the period of mid June to mid July 2004.
During this time, the Booster consistently reached peak outputs of
7.5E16 protons/hr for all users. The total beam up time for the period
was 90%, so the projected total for that intensity would be 4.9E17
protons. In fact, 4.2E19 protons were delivered, resulting in an
average/peak factor of 4.2/4.9≈85%. After applying this factor, the
protons needed for antiproton production and NuMI are subtracted to
determine the PoT for BNB.

Additionally, 10% down time for NuMI is included for collider shot
setup. During this time all available protons are sent to BNB. We have
also applied a 5% reduction for NuMI to allow for antiproton transfers
from the Accumulator to the Recycler. This does not affect BNB
operation. Finally, for 2005, a 5% downtime is applied to both beamlines
to allow for potential interference from electron cooling commissioning
in the Main Injector tunnel.

Table 6 shows the final performance parameters for each phase of
operation. On completion of the present scope of this plan at the end of
Phase III, it is estimated that 3.4E20 protons will be delivered
annually to NuMI and 2.2E20 to BNB.

For reference, parameters are included for typical running in July 2004.
An 11 Hz scenario in which 2+9 Booster batches are delivered to NuMI and
BNB is then supplied at 5Hz is also included. This would require the
Booster to operate at an average repetition rate over 11 Hz, and is
beyond the scope of the present plan.

+--------+--------+-------+----+-------+------+------+------+------+
|        | **Boo  | *     | *  | **MI  | *    | **T  | **An |      |
|        | ster** | *Main | *C | I     | *Boo | otal | nual |      |
|        |        | Inj   | yc | ntens | ster | Pr   | Rate |      |
|        | *      | ector | le | ity** | Rate | oton | at   |      |
|        | *Batch | L     | Ti |       | \*** | Ra   | end  |      |
|        | Size** | oad** | me |       |      | te** | of   |      |
|        |        |       | ** |       |      |      | Pha  |      |
|        |        |       |    |       |      |      | se** |      |
+--------+--------+-------+----+-------+------+------+------+------+
|        |        | (AP + | (  | (pro  | (Hz) | (p   | **Nu | **B  |
|        |        | NuMI) | se | tons) |      | /hr) | MI** | NB** |
|        |        |       | c) |       |      |      |      |      |
+--------+--------+-------+----+-------+------+------+------+------+
| **     |        |       |    |       |      |      |      |      |
| Actual |        |       |    |       |      |      |      |      |
| Opera  |        |       |    |       |      |      |      |      |
| tion** |        |       |    |       |      |      |      |      |
+--------+--------+-------+----+-------+------+------+------+------+
| *      | 5      | 1+0   | 2  | 0.    | 5.1  | 0.8  | 0    | 3.3  |
| *July, | .0E+12 |       | .0 | 5E+13 |      | E+17 |      | E+20 |
| 04**   |        |       |    |       |      |      |      |      |
+--------+--------+-------+----+-------+------+------+------+------+
| **     |        |       |    |       |      |      |      |      |
| Proton |        |       |    |       |      |      |      |      |
| Plan** |        |       |    |       |      |      |      |      |
+--------+--------+-------+----+-------+------+------+------+------+
| *      | 5.     | 2+    | 2  | 3.    | 6.3  | 1.0  | 2.0  | 1.5  |
| *Phase | 10E+12 | 12+5 | .0 | 6E+13 |      | E+17 | E+20 | E+20 |
| I**    |        |       |    |       |      |      |      |      |
+--------+--------+-------+----+-------+------+------+------+------+
| *      | 5      | 2+5   | 2  | 3.    | 7.5  | 1.2  | 2.2  | 2.8  |
| *Phase | .3E+12 |       | .0 | 7E+13 |      | E+17 | E+20 | E+20 |
| II**   |        |       |    |       |      |      |      |      |
+--------+--------+-------+----+-------+------+------+------+------+
| *      | 5.     | 2+9   | 2  | 6.    | 8.3  | 1.5  | 3.4  | 2.2  |
| *Phase | 50E+12 |       | .2 | 0E+13 |      | E+17 | E+20 | E+20 |
| III**  |        |       |    |       |      |      |      |      |
+--------+--------+-------+----+-------+------+------+------+------+
| **     |        |       |    |       |      |      |      |      |
| Beyond |        |       |    |       |      |      |      |      |
| Scope  |        |       |    |       |      |      |      |      |
| of     |        |       |    |       |      |      |      |      |
| P      |        |       |    |       |      |      |      |      |
| resent |        |       |    |       |      |      |      |      |
| Plan** |        |       |    |       |      |      |      |      |
+--------+--------+-------+----+-------+------+------+------+------+
| **11   | 5.     | 2+9   | 2  | 6.    | 11.0 | 2.0  | 3.4  | 5.0  |
| Hz**   | 50E+12 |       | .2 | 1E+13 |      | E+17 | E+20 | E+20 |
+--------+--------+-------+----+-------+------+------+------+------+

> TABLE 6: Performance parameters at the completion of each phase of
> operation.
>
> \* Booster rate is limited by radiation levels, except for the 11 Hz
> case

Individual machine performance projections are shown in figure 9. The
cumulative totals through the beginning of 2010 are shown in figure 10
for both NuMI and BNB.

![](media/image11.wmf){width="3.8in" height="2.5930555555555554in"}

![](media/image12.wmf){width="3.78125in" height="2.5805555555555557in"}

> FIGURE 9: Projected performance in terms of (a) the average Booster
> repetition rate, and (b) Main Injector intensity.

![](media/image13.wmf){width="3.752083333333333in"
height="2.567361111111111in"}

![](media/image14.wmf){width="3.752083333333333in"
height="2.573611111111111in"}

> FIGURE 10: (a) weekly and (b) cumulative total PoT for BNB and NuMI in
> the Design Projection.

The performance risk in this plan is quite different for the two
beamlines. For NuMI the risk is that slip stacking proves problematic or
the Main Injector RF upgrade fails to allow the acceleration of the full
beam intensity. The scenario for NuMI without slip stacking is shown in
figure 11(a). In this case the maximum annual PoT rate to NuMI would be
2.2E20. It should be noted, however, that slip stacking has been
successfully developed for antiproton production, and development for
NuMI will be demonstrated by early 2006. Similarly the RF upgrade will
be demonstrated on a test station by the end of 2005.

For BNB the main uncertainty is due to the radiation limit in the
Booster. Using the fall-back projection for the radiation limit
described in section 4.2, and the methodology described at the beginning
of this section, the scenario for BNB is shown in figure 11(b). Under
these assumptions, the beam available for BNB is severely limited with
slip stacking for NuMI.

Figure 11 also shows the effect of a delay for the Design Projections in
completion of the Booster Corrector System (WBS 1.2.3) and the Main
Injector RF Upgrade (WBS 1.3.4) by one year each. With the delay in the
RF upgrade, NUMI takes less beam in 2007, allowing more protons to be
provided to BNB.

![](media/image15.wmf){width="3.9805555555555556in"
height="2.716666666666667in"}

![](media/image16.wmf){width="3.9993055555555554in"
height="2.736111111111111in"}

> FIGURE 11: (a) Design and fall-back (without slip stacking)
> projections for NuMI (b) Design and fall-back (conservative
> improvement to Booster radiation limit) projections for BNB

It should be noted that the BNB projection is highly dependent on the
assumptions made regarding the improvement to the radiation limits in
the Booster. The Design Projection assumes that 50% of the optimal
improvement is actually achieved and the Fall-Back Projection assumes
25%. Once slip stacking for NuMI starts in phase III, the delivery of
useful intensity to BNB is dependent on the success of these upgrades.
The accuracy of the projections will improve as progress is made on the
Booster subprojects.

# References

1.  <http://www-boone.fnal.gov/>

2.  <http://www-numi.fnal.gov/>

3.  D. Finley, *et al*, "Report to the Fermilab Director", Oct. 2003.
    <http://www.fnal.gov/directorate/program_planning/studies/ProtonReport.pdf>

4.  "The Run II Luminosity Upgrade v2.0", Jan. 2003.\
    <http://www-bdnew.fnal.gov/doereview04/RunII_Upgrade_Plan_v2.0.pdf>

5.  N. Mokhov, *et al*, "Fermilab Beam Collimation and Shielding", 2004
    PAC, TPAG033 (2003).

6.  J. Lackey, "New Dogleg Layout", Booster Space Charge Meeting,
    May, 2003.
    <http://www-bd.fnal.gov/pdriver/booster/meetings2/22may_layout_new.pdf>

7.  W.Chou, "Revised RF Power Calculations", Booster Space Charge
    Meeting, Sep. 2004.
    <http://www-bd.fnal.gov/pdriver/meetings3/chou_16sept04_rev.pdf> .
    Limit can be raised to 4E13 by modifying acceleration ramp (I.
    Kourbanis, private communication).

8.  D. Harding, J. Lackey, E. Prebys, Fermilab/BEAMS-DOC-1430. Oct.
    2004.

9.  D. Wolff, "Booster Dual Resonance", Booster Space Charge Meeting,
    Jan. 2004.
    <http://www-bd.fnal.gov/pdriver/booster/meetings8/wolff_29jan04.pdf>

10. W. Merz, C. Ankenbrandt, and K. Koepke, "Transition Jump System for
    the Fermilab Booster", FERMILAB-TM-1473, Sep. 1987.

11. A.R. Franck, *et al*, FERMILAB-CONF-01/342/E. Dec. 2003.

12. K. Koba, Fermilab/BEAMS-DOC-1432. Oct. 2004.

13. A. Drozhdin, *et al*, "Evaluation of Fringe Field Effect...",
    Booster Space Charge Meeting, Aug. 2003.

> <http://www-bd.fnal.gov/pdriver/booster/meetings4/fringe_field.pdf>